DRY FRACTIONATION AND FUNCTIONALISATION OF CEREAL …
Transcript of DRY FRACTIONATION AND FUNCTIONALISATION OF CEREAL …
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry
Department of Food and Nutrition
Doctoral Programme in Food Chain and Health
University of Helsinki, Finland
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd
EKT Series 1987
DRY FRACTIONATION AND FUNCTIONALISATION OF CEREAL SIDE STREAMS FOR THEIR IMPROVED FOOD
APPLICABILITY
Pia Silventoinen
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
To be presented for public examination with the permission of the Faculty
of Agriculture and Forestry of the University of Helsinki, in lecture hall B3,
Forest Sciences Building, Latokartanonkaari 7, on the 3rd of March 2021, at
12 noon.
Helsinki 2021
Custos: Associate Professor Kati Katina
Department of Food and Nutrition
University of Helsinki, Finland
Supervisors: Docent Emilia Nordlund
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, Finland
Research Professor Nesli Sözer
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, Finland
Doctor Dilek Ercili-Cura
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd
Currently affiliated with Solar Foods Ltd, Finland
Members of the thesis advisory committee:
Senior Advisor Kaisa Poutanen
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, Finland
Associate Professor Kati Katina
Department of Food and Nutrition
University of Helsinki, Finland
Pre-examiners: Doctor Cécile Barron
Ingénierie des Agropolymères et Technologies Emergentes
INRAE, the French National Research Institute for
Agriculture, Food, and the Environment, France
Professor Milena Corredig
Department of Food Science - Food Chemistry and Technology
Aarhus University, Denmark
Opponent: Associate Professor Maarten Schutyser
Department of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences
Wageningen University & Research, the Netherlands
ISBN 978-951-51-7113-9 (paperback)
ISBN 978-951-51-7114-6 (PDF; https://ethesis.helsinki.fi/)
ISSN 0355-1180
The Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry uses the Urkund system (plagiarism
recognition) to examine all doctoral dissertations.
Cover image: Dr. Ulla Holopainen-Mantila, VTT and Pia Silventoinen
PunaMusta Oy, Vantaa 2021
3
ABSTRACT
The agro-food industry generates annually substantial amounts of side
streams, resulting in the loss of high-quality protein and dietary fibre, whereas
their incorporation into the food chain would positively contribute to resource
sufficiency and healthier diets. However, plant-based ingredients, especially
proteins, typically deliver limited performance in certain food applications, such
as beverages and spoonable products, when compared with their animal-
based counterparts. Therefore, fractionation and functionalisation techniques
are investigated and applied to improve the applicability of the plant-origin
ingredients in a wider range of food matrices where they can offer alternatives
to animal-based ingredients. Dry fractionation provides a sustainable and
gentle processing technology, which allows the production of multicomponent
hybrid-ingredients, enriched in protein but also containing considerable
amounts of dietary fibre or starch, depending on the raw material. The aim of
the current work was to investigate the use of dry fractionation, more
specifically, dry milling and air classification, for increasing the protein content
of cereal side streams, namely, wheat, rice and rye brans, and the barley
endosperm fraction. In addition, the objective was to understand the factors
affecting the technological functionality and applicability of the protein-
enriched ingredients in the relevant food matrices. To facilitate a more efficient
fractionation, pre-treatments, including defatting with supercritical carbon
dioxide (SC-CO2) for rice bran, moisture removal for wheat and rye brans and
mixing with a flow aid for the barley endosperm fraction, were elucidated. The
technological functionality of the protein-enriched fractions was examined, and
bioprocessing and physical processing approaches for improving the
ingredient applicability in high-moisture food systems were investigated with
rice and barley fractions.
This study revealed that the fat removal, drying and use of flowability aids
were effective in enhancing dry fractionation by improving the processability,
particle size reduction and dispersability of rice bran, wheat and rye brans, and
the barley endosperm fraction, respectively. Pin disc milling and air
classification of a SC-CO2-extracted rice bran increased the protein content
from 18.5 to 25.7% with 38.0% protein separation efficiency (PSE).
Alternatively, a two-step air classification of the defatted rice bran allowed to
reach a slightly higher protein content (27.4%) with lower PSE (20.2%)
compared with the one-step air classification approach. Air classification of the
dried and pin disc-milled wheat and rye brans increased the protein content
from 16.4 and 14.7%, respectively, to 30.9 and 30.7%, with PSE of 18.0 and
26.9%. Additionally, soluble-to-insoluble dietary fibre ratios were increased
and phytic acid was considerably enriched in bran fractionations. The
maximum protein content reached by air classification from the barley
endosperm fraction, initially containing 80.0% starch and 8.3% protein, was
4
28.3% with 21.7% PSE, while reaching a lower protein enrichment level of
22.3% allowed obtaining PSE of 59.4%.
The protein-enriched fractions, especially those from rice and wheat,
exhibited higher protein solubility than the raw material brans, presumably due
to the enrichment of albumin and globulin proteins from the aleurone during
air classification, which was also indicated by an altered protein profile and the
co-enrichment of phytic acid. When the ultra-fine milling of wheat and rye
brans was explored as an alternative to fractionation, the formation of
damaged starch and lowered protein solubility were observed. The protein-
enriched brans and the ultra-finely milled brans both showed improved
dispersion stabilities, whereas pasting viscosities, and water and oil binding
capacities were lower for the hybrid ingredients compared with the pin disc-
milled raw materials. The protein-enriched fraction from barley, on the other
hand, exhibited low protein solubility and limited techno-functional properties.
The applicability of the protein-enriched fractions in high-moisture food
model systems was tested after ingredient modifications via enzyme
treatment, ultrasonication and pH shifting. Phytase treatment of the protein-
enriched rice bran fraction improved the behaviour of the ingredient in heat-
induced gelation, especially under alkaline conditions. For the protein-
enriched barley fraction, ultrasound treatment with or without pH shifting
reduced particle size; improved colloidal stability at pH 3, 7 and 9; and
increased protein solubility, especially at pH 9.
To conclude, dry fractionation of cereal side streams allowed protein
enrichment with a concurrent increase in the soluble-to-insoluble dietary fibre
ratios of the brans and considerable reduction in the starch content of the
barley endosperm fraction. Additionally, this thesis demonstrated for the first
time that cereal side stream-derived, protein-enriched hybrid ingredients
exhibit improved technological functionalities that can be further enhanced via
enzymatic or physical processes that affect, for example, their gelation and
dispersion stability. The bioprocessed protein-enriched rice bran fraction could
find potential use as a raw material in spoonable food products delivering a
good amount of protein and dietary fibre and allowing the use of the nutritional
claim that the food is a ‘source of fibre’. The ultrasound-treated barley protein
ingredients, on the other hand, should be further studied in the manufacturing
of plant-based milk substitutes. In general, these improved ingredient
properties suggest the possibility of developing novel side stream-based food
ingredients with increased nutritional and technological qualities that
simultaneously contribute positively to raw material resource sufficiency.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was carried out at VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd
during the years 2016–2020. The research leading to this work received
funding from the Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking under the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant
agreement No. 668953−PROMINENT, and from Nordic Innovation under
grant number P14046–FUNPRO. The Finnish Food and Drink Industries’
Federation and Doctoral Programme in Food Chain and Health kindly provided
funding for participating in conferences and performing some of the
experiments. All financial support is highly appreciated. Südzucker AG, Altia
Corporation and Fazer Mills are acknowledged for providing raw materials for
the work.
I wish to express my most sincere gratitudes to my supervisors Docent
Emilia Nordlund, Dr. Dilek Ercili-Cura and Research Professor Nesli Sözer, for
their invaluable support and guidance throughout this work. I am deeply
grateful to my wonderful team leader Emilia, who has supervised me ever
since my master’s thesis work, for her excellent scientific insights and for being
always available for discussions despite her overflowing schedule. Her
enthusiasm towards improving the food system bite by bite is something truly
admirable. I am thankful to Nesli for all her inspiring ideas and input to my
work, and for entrusting me with various demanding tasks within this PhD and
other projects that have allowed me to develop into a more mature researcher.
I warmly thank Dilek for her constructive guidance, caring and mentoring, and
sharing similar thoughts in various aspects, which has led to many long
discussions especially during the mid-part of my PhD. I truly appreciate the
way in which you value the power of research and essence of science.
I wish to thank Senior Advisor Kaisa Poutanen for guiding me especially in
the beginning of my research career and acting as a member of my thesis
advisory committee. Her enthusiasm in cereal science and research is an
inspiration to us all. Associate professor Kati Katina is acknowledged for her
guidance during the years of my doctoral studies and for acting as a member
of the thesis advisory committee.
I am sincerely thankful to all my co-authors for their invaluable contributions
and advice. I wish to thank my colleague Dr. Ulla Holopainen-Mantila for her
assistance in interpreting the microscopy analyses and for the various fruitful
discussions. I thank Dr. Katariina Rommi for her excellent guidance during the
first steps of my research career and Dr. Mika Sipponen for the valuable
collaboration related to Publication III. I am thankful to my colleague Anni
Kortekangas for the collaboration, friendship and insightful discussions related
to gelation ever since her master’s thesis in which she carried out major parts
of the experimental work of Publication IV under my supervision. I am thankful
to my pre-examiners Dr. Cécile Barron and Professor Milena Corredig for their
6
valuable feedback and suggestions during the preliminary examination of this
thesis.
I am sincerely thankful for VTT for providing the world-class research
facilities and supporting the work financially but also for allowing me to learn
key elements about project management, research collaboration and
customer relationships along the path to PhD. I deeply thank all the former and
current members of our Food Solutions team for creating an inspiring, warm
and supportive working environment each day. I am grateful to VTT’s excellent
and helpful technical staff for all their assistance and contributions to the
experimental work. Especially, I wish to thank Riitta Pasanen, Leila Kostamo,
Eero Mattila, Anna-Liisa Ruskeepää, Tarja Wikström, Tytti Salminen and
Niklas Fred for their never-ending helpful attitude and all the cheerful moments
in the lab. Eva Fredriksson-Haramo is acknowledged for being always
available to help in any daily issues. Special thanks go to Anni Nisov – I am
extremely thankful for both your friendship and scientific support and I will
always cherish our fascinating discussions related to everything between
protein conformation and livingroom decoration. I wish to thank my roommate
Natalia Rosa-Sibakov for cheerful discussions and all the advice throughout
these years. I wish to thank Iina Jokinen and Anna-Maria Sneck who enabled
me to deep dive also into the world of oats during supervision of their master’s
thesis works. I want to thank Markus Nikinmaa, Alex Calton, Outi Nivala, Heikki
Aisala, Martina Lille, Kaisu Honkapää, Eeva Rantala, and many others for the
recovering lunch sessions, virtual coffee breaks and inspiring discussions.
I extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and friends for all their
encouragement, support and interest towards this work. I am grateful to my
mother for her love and care throughout my life. I thank Matilda, Jaana, Kari,
Laura and Ed for all the joyful moments and encouragement. I am grateful for
Susanne, Saara, Sari and many other dear friends for all the happiness,
support and enlightenment that you bring to my days.
Finally, I owe my dearest thanks to my beloved fiancé, Antti, for sharing all
the possible micro- and macro-scale joys and griefs in life. Your empowering
love, enlightening support and our cheerful moments and adventures are
priceless to me!
Espoo, January 2021
Pia Silventoinen
7
CONTENTS
Abstract ................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgements .............................................................................. 5
List of original publications ............................................................... 10
Author’s contributions ....................................................................... 11
Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 12
1 Introduction .................................................................................... 13
2 Review of the literature .................................................................. 15
2.1 Side streams in cereal grain processing .................................. 15
2.1.1 Side streams deriving from refining cereal grains into white flour ............................................................ 16
2.1.2 Side streams from other dry separation processes of cereal materials ...................................................... 19
2.1.3 Opportunities and challenges of cereal side streams for food use ................................................................ 20
2.2 Dry fractionation of cereal grains ............................................. 21
2.2.1 Dry milling for particle size reduction .......................... 22
2.2.2 Air classification for cereal component fractionation ... 24
2.2.3 Comparison of dry separation processes for fractionation of components from cereal grains .......... 32
2.2.4 Factors affecting the efficacy of dry fractionation ....... 35
2.3 Techno-functional properties of cereal ingredients .................. 37
2.3.1 Protein composition and solubility .............................. 37
2.3.2 Technological functionality of proteins ........................ 39
2.3.3 Technological functionality of starch and dietary fibre ............................................................................ 43
2.3.4 Strategies to improve the functional properties of plant ingredients ......................................................... 44
8
3 Aims of the study ........................................................................... 47
4 Materials and methods .................................................................. 48
4.1 Raw materials, flow aid and enzyme........................................ 48
4.2 Pre-treatments prior to dry fractionation ................................... 48
4.3 Dry fractionation ....................................................................... 51
4.3.1 Milling ......................................................................... 51
4.3.2 Air classification .......................................................... 51
4.4 Functionalisation ...................................................................... 52
4.4.1 Phytase treatment ...................................................... 52
4.4.2 Ultrasound treatment .................................................. 53
4.5 Analytical methods ................................................................... 54
4.5.1 Composition, microstructure and particle size ............ 54
4.5.2 Protein solubility, protein profile and surface hydrophobicity ............................................................ 55
4.5.3 Dispersion stability, emulsification and foaming ......... 56
4.5.4 Water and oil binding capacities ................................. 57
4.5.5 Pasting properties ...................................................... 57
4.5.6 Gelation and gel characterisation ............................... 57
4.6 Statistical analysis.................................................................... 58
4.7 Overview of the experimental research .................................... 58
5 Results ............................................................................................ 59
5.1 Dry fractionation ....................................................................... 59
5.1.1 Composition and structure of raw materials before and after pre-processing (I, II, III) ............................... 59
5.1.2 Component fractionation in air classification (I, II, III) ....................................................................... 62
5.2 Techno-functional properties of the dry-fractionated ingredients ............................................................................... 65
5.2.1 Protein solubility (I, II, III) ............................................ 65
5.2.2 Other techno-functional properties (I, II, III) ................ 66
5.3 Functionalisation of the air-classified ingredients ..................... 68
5.3.1 Phytase treatment (IV)................................................ 68
5.3.2 Ultrasound treatment (V) ............................................ 69
9
6 Discussion ...................................................................................... 72
6.1 Evaluation of differences in dry fractionation of cereal side streams .................................................................................... 72
6.1.1 The effect of pre-treatments on ingredient properties and dry fractionation efficiency .................. 72
6.1.2 Protein enrichment from cereal side streams in relation to their structure and composition .............. 75
6.2 The effect of dry fractionation on the techno-functional properties of cereal side stream ingredients ............................ 79
6.2.1 Changes in protein solubility ....................................... 79
6.2.2 Changes in other techno-functional properties ........... 81
6.3 Modification of the techno-functional ingredient properties by enzymatic and physical processing ..................................... 84
6.3.1 Improving the heat-induced gelation of the protein-enriched rice bran fraction by phytase treatment ........ 84
6.3.2 Improving the physicochemical properties of barley protein ingredients by ultrasound treatment and pH shifting ........................................................... 86
6.4 Limitations of the study ............................................................ 88
6.4.1 Experimental design ................................................... 88
6.4.2 Analytics ..................................................................... 89
6.5 Future prospects ...................................................................... 90
7 Conclusions .................................................................................... 92
References .......................................................................................... 95
10
LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS
This thesis is based on the following publications:
I Silventoinen P, Rommi K, Holopainen-Mantila U, Poutanen K,
Nordlund E. 2019. Biochemical and techno-functional properties
of protein- and fibre-rich hybrid ingredients produced by dry
fractionation from rice bran. Food Bioprocess Technol.
12(9):1487–1499.
II Silventoinen P, Kortekangas A, Ercili-Cura D, Nordlund E. 2021.
Impact of ultra-fine milling and air classification on biochemical
and techno-functional characteristics of wheat and rye bran. Food
Res. Int. 139:109971.
III Silventoinen P, Sipponen MH, Holopainen-Mantila U, Poutanen
K, Sozer N. 2018. Use of air classification technology to produce
protein-enriched barley ingredients. J. Food Eng. 222:169–177.
IV Kortekangas A, Silventoinen P, Nordlund E, Ercili-Cura D. 2020.
Phytase treatment of a protein-enriched rice bran fraction
improves heat-induced gelation properties at alkaline conditions.
Food Hydrocoll. 105:105787.
V Silventoinen P, Sozer N. 2020. Impact of ultrasound treatment
and pH-shifting on physicochemical properties of protein-enriched
barley fraction and barley protein isolate. Foods 9:1055.
The publications are referred to in the text by their roman numerals.
11
AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS
I Pia Silventoinen participated in designing the study under the
supervision of Katariina Rommi, Emilia Nordlund and Kaisa
Poutanen. She was responsible of the experimental work and
conducted the dry fractionation experiments, protein analytics,
particle size determinations, analysis of the techno-functional
properties and statistical analysis. She had the main responsibility
for the interpretation of the results and writing the publication with
her co-authors. Ulla Holopainen-Mantila had the main
responsibility for the microscopy analyses.
II Pia Silventoinen designed and coordinated the work under the
supervision of Dilek Ercili-Cura and Emilia Nordlund. She was responsible for the experimental work and also had the main responsibility for the data analysis, statistical analysis and interpretation of the results. She was responsible for writing the publication together with all the co-authors.
III Pia Silventoinen participated in designing the research together
with Mika Sipponen under the supervision of Nesli Sözer and Kaisa Poutanen, conducted part of the dry fractionation experiments and was responsible for the characterisation of the ingredients. She had the main responsibility for the data analysis, statistical analysis, interpretation of the results and writing the publication together with her co-authors. Ulla Holopainen-Mantila had the main responsibility for the microscopy analyses.
IV Pia Silventoinen coordinated the work and designed it together
with Anni Kortekangas under the supervision of Dilek Ercili-Cura and Emilia Nordlund, conducted dry fractionation experiments for ingredient preparation, supervised the master’s thesis student/research trainee, Anni Kortekangas, in the execution of the experimental work and was partially responsible for the microscopy analysis. She and Anni Kortekangas had the main responsibility (equal authorship) for the data analysis, interpretation of the results and writing the publication together with the other co-authors.
V Pia Silventoinen had the main responsibility for designing the
experimental set-up under the supervision of Nesli Sözer. She planned the dry fractionation experiments for the industrial scale, designed the protein isolation experiments and was responsible for the ultrasound treatments. Moreover, she had the main responsibility for the data analysis, the interpretation of the results and writing the publication together with Nesli Sözer.
12
ABBREVIATIONS
AACC American Association of Cereal Chemists
AOAC Association of Official Analytical Collaboration International
ANS 1-anilino-8-naphthalene sulfonate
DF dietary fibre
dm dry matter
G' storage modulus
G'' loss modulus
IDF insoluble dietary fibre
PSE protein separation efficiency
RVA Rapid Visco Analyser
SC-CO2 supercritical carbon dioxide
SDF soluble dietary fibre
SDS-PAGE sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
tan δ loss tangent
WBC water binding capacity (of a flour)
WHC water holding capacity (of a gel)
13
1 INTRODUCTION
Due to major global challenges, including climate change and population
growth, the agro-food industry is urged to take actions towards more
sustainable approaches for food production. The transformation of the global
food system into more plant-based direction is needed from both resource
sufficiency and human health perspectives. Dietary patterns have a major role
in food security, and the sustainability and environmental impact of foods. The
exploitation of proteins derived from plants and industrial side streams are
currently increasingly studied due to the verified negative impacts of meat and
dairy production on the environment (Poore and Nemecek 2018; Springmann
et al. 2018). In addition, plant-based diets are also considered healthier (Willett
et al. 2019).
The industrial milling of cereal grains into refined flours for food use has
been applied for centuries. However, the milling processes always result in the
production of side streams that are not fully exploited for food but rather
applied for feed or in energy production. The milling of grains, that targets the
production of white endosperm flour, yields vast amounts of underutilised bran
and germ fractions which are rich in nutritionally valuable components, such
as protein and dietary fibre (DF) (Delcour and Hoseney 2010). In addition to
milling, other cereal ingredient, food and beverage production processes
generate side streams. Valorisation of these cereal side streams as food
ingredients would not only provide improved sustainability via resource
sufficiency but also promote the utilisation of the full nutritional potential of
cereal grains in human diets. Currently, feasible solutions for the valorisation
of cereal side streams as appealing and functional food ingredients are still
lacking.
The challenges regarding the utilisation of cereal side streams in food
applications include the low level of component purity in the side streams and
the inferior techno-functional properties of cereal proteins compared with their
animal-based counterparts, resulting from the large molecular weight and low
water solubility of the plant proteins. Hence, improving the performance of the
target components in food applications necessitates fractionation and further
functionalisation. However, ingredient purification aiming at the manufacture
of concentrates or isolates is generally obtained at the expense of other
favourable ingredient attributes. As illustrated in Figure 1, a higher level of
purification may result in improved technological ingredient functionality, but
the processing costs increase concurrently. On the contrary, the less refined
ingredients contain more of the raw material macro- and micronutrients and
fewer side streams are generated during their production. Further, less
processing also allows retention of the native functionality of the ingredients
that may be lost in isolation processes applying harsh treatment conditions.
Indeed, instead of aiming at producing pure isolates by water-intensive
Introduction
14
processes, it is equally important to focus on the design of multi-component,
less-refined food ingredients, enriched in nutritionally favourable components.
The wet extraction of cereal side stream proteins for use as added-value
ingredients has been rather extensively studied, whereas only a little is known
about the potential of dry fractionation in side stream valorisation. Dry
fractionation refers to dry unit operations, such as milling and air classification,
which target the modification or separation of components in dry materials as
a result of physical forces acting on them. By dry fractionation, the under-
utilised cereal side streams can be converted into multi-component food
powders, also referred to as hybrid ingredients, enriched in protein and, for
example, DF, thereby offering nutritionally and technologically valuable, new
and resource-efficient food ingredients. However, the general limitations of
plant-based ingredients, including, for example, poor protein solubility, low
dispersion stability, the presence of antinutritional factors and taste
challenges, apply to the dry-fractionated ingredients as well, and thus, further
functionalisation via, for example, physical, biochemical or hydrothermal
approaches may be required.
Figure 1. A schematic presentation of the impact of food ingredient purification on the properties of the
ingredient.
The current work focuses on the valorisation of cereal side streams using dry
fractionation alone or in combination with bioprocessing or physical
processing, targeting their improved applicability in high-moisture food
systems. In the literature review, the most important cereal side streams and
their production processes are summarised. Additionally, dry processing
approaches for cereal component fractionation and technological functionality
and the functionalisation of cereal ingredients are covered. The literature part
concentrates mainly on the cereal grains studied in this work (i.e. rice, wheat,
rye and barley), but other cereal grains (for example, oats) are discussed when
relevant. The experimental part of this thesis focuses on the development of
suitable dry fractionation approaches for the cereal side streams deriving from
rice, wheat, rye and barley. Moreover, the study elucidates the impact of both
dry fractionation and selected bio- or physical processing on the techno-
functional properties of the dry-fractionated cereal ingredients.
15
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 SIDE STREAMS IN CEREAL GRAIN PROCESSING
Cereal grains are staple foods for most of the world’s population. Globally,
maize has the largest annual production volume among the cereal grains and,
in 2018, the production was 1 147.6 million tonnes (FAOSTAT 2018; Table 1).
Rice ranks second with annual production of 782.0 million tonnes of paddy rice
(FAOSTAT 2018). Wheat is the third most abundantly produced cereal grain
with 734.0 million tonnes produced annually, whereas various coarse grains
(e.g. barley, sorghum, millet, oats and rye) are produced in lesser quantities
(FAOSTAT 2018). In addition to being consumed as food, use for feed and in
biofuel production are important areas of cereal grain consumption. Milled rice
is mainly utilised for food (81.0%) whereas only approximately 70% of wheat
is used for human consumption (OECD/FAO 2020; Shiferaw et al. 2013). Even
more noticeably lower amounts of maize (12.4%) and other coarse grains
(27.9%) are consumed as food (OECD/FAO 2020).
Table 1. Annual global production and consumption quantities of the major cereal crops. Consumption
is divided into food, feed and biofuel consumption and the values presented in parentheses account for the share of total consumption of each consumption category. Additionally, the amounts of brans are listed for the main crops that contribute significantly to global agricultural side stream generation.
Productiona Consumptionb Bran
production
Total As food As feed As biofuel
Mt Mt Mt Mt Mt Mt
Maize 1 147.6 1 141.5 141.8 (12.4%) 675.1 (59.1%) 181.4 (15.9%) 20–23e Wheat 734.0 747.4 511.5 (68.4%) 149.4 (20.0%) 9.2 (1.2%) 56–92f Rice 782.0c 511.7d 414.2 (81.0%) 17.8 (3.5%) 0.0 (0.0%) 63–76g Other coarse grains
266.1 282.6 78.9 (27.9%) 144.9 (51.3%) 9.1 (3.2%) -
Barley 141.4 - - - - - Sorghum 59.3 - - - - - Millet 31.0 - - - - - Oats 23.1 - - - - - Rye 11.3 - - - - -
Mt: million tonnes. a FAOSTAT (2018), data from 2018. b OECD/FAO (2020), data expressed as average from 2017–2019 (estimation). c expressed as paddy rice. d expressed as milled rice. e calculated based on the food use amount and pericarp (5–6% of the grain) and germ (9–10% of the grain) shares of the grain (Chaudhary et al. 2014; Delcour and Hoseney 2010). f calculated based on the food use amount and bran share of the kernel (11–18%). g Kahlon (2009). - : not available / not relevant.
Cereal grain processing generates vast amounts of side streams from milling
and biorefining industries. In addition to the low-valued fractions from the
milling industry, such as husk and bran, cereal-derived side streams include
brewer’s spent grain (BSG) and malt sprouts from brewing, dried distiller’s
Review of the literature
16
grains with solubles (DDGS) from bioethanol production and protein-rich
streams from the wet extraction of cereal starches, as reviewed by Galanakis
(2018). Moreover, some of the first-step side streams, such as corn germ and
rice bran, are commonly further processed by oil extraction steps, resulting in
high-value oils and secondary side streams, such as defatted corn germ and
defatted rice bran.
The most essential process for cereal grains that targets food
manufacturing is dry milling, which results in the production of food
ingredients, such as flours, flakes and brans. The various steps in dry milling
are distinctive for each cereal species. Most cereal grains are processed using
cleaning, sorting, dehulling (for the hulled grains) and dry milling steps,
resulting in whole grains and, further, either polished or pearled grains, or
fractionation-based refined flour, as reviewed by Delcour and Hoseney (2010).
Due to the removal of the outer grain layers and germ that are high in protein,
DF, vitamins, minerals and oils, the refined flour ingredient from the milling
process is recognised as having lower nutritional value than the whole grain
but is widely used owing to its superior techno-functional and sensory
qualities. The side streams produced in the dry processing of cereal grains are
discussed in the following Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.
2.1.1 SIDE STREAMS DERIVING FROM REFINING CEREAL GRAINS
INTO WHITE FLOUR
The dry milling of cereal grains includes different approaches to physically
detach the grain structure. In general, the term dry milling accounts for all the
unit operations involved in the transformation of unprocessed native grains
into cereal-derived food ingredients (Figure 2). In these processes the aim is
to separate the different botanical parts of the grains, such as the starchy
endosperm, outer kernel layers and the germ, in order to produce refined
ingredients. Depending on the grain type, the milling procedures vary and may
result in, for example, dehulled grains, pearled or polished grains, grits, coarse
semolina or fine flour (Delcour and Hoseney 2010).
In the first step of the milling process, all cereal grains are cleaned using
several unit operations. Then, the grains containing hulls after harvesting (e.g.
rice and barley) are dehulled, resulting in the first side-stream fraction of the
grain milling process. In rice, the hulls are not fused with the outer grain layers
and contribute to 20% of the whole grain (Evers and Millar 2002). In barley,
the hull, accounting for 10–13% of the grain, is cemented to the outer pericarp
layers. Therefore, it requires pearling in order to be removed and this usually
results in the partial removal of the pericarp, seed coat and aleurone layers
(Delcour and Hoseney 2010; Evers and Millar 2002). Thus, the side stream
fraction from barley grain refining usually contains hull and also some outer
bran layers. Cereal hulls are mainly composed of non-starch polysaccharides
and ash, and the amount of protein is low (Delcour and Hoseney 2010). The
main use for cereal hulls is currently found in direct energy production
17
(Galanakis 2018) but, for example, for rice hulls, the uses vary from soil
amendments to feed and litter, and to bedding for poultry (Bodie et al. 2019).
Figure 2. A simplified processing scheme illustrating the main unit operations in wheat, rice, barley and
rye milling. The white-coloured boxes represent processing steps and the light grey boxes show the grains that are processed with each method. The dark grey boxes indicate the final products. The processes where side streams are generated are marked with black stars.
The dehulled grains, like brown rice and pearled barley grains, can be directly
consumed as food or milled to obtain whole grain flour. However, the refined
cereal ingredients are considered more valuable and, thus, the whole grains
are generally further processed. The most distinctive step of cereal grain
milling is related to the removal and separation of bran from the starchy
endosperm, which yields the bran fraction composing of the outer grain layers
(the pericarp, seed coat and nucellus) and often also the germ (Figure 3). For
most cereal grains, the bran fraction also includes the endosperm-derived
constituents, aleurone and subaleurone. Moreover, varying amounts of inner
starchy endosperm regions may be present in the bran preparation. Table 2
lists the composition of the common cereal brans. As shown in Figure 2, the
process for the removal of the outer grain layers from the starchy endosperm
differs for each species.
Wheat and rye bran separation usually initiates with tempering and
conditioning steps (i.e. the addition of water), which soften the starchy
endosperm and toughen the bran, allowing to remove the the bran from the
starchy endosperm as larger pieces during the milling process (Delcour and
Hoseney 2010). For wheat and rye, bran separation takes place in a roller mill
system in which the grain is crushed and sieved in multiple steps. Bran
Review of the literature
18
represents 11–18% and 10–20% of whole wheat and rye kernels, respectively
(Brouns et al. 2012; Delcour and Hoseney 2010). Wheat grains can also be
pre-treated by debranning using so-called modified rice polishers (as reviewed
by Dexter and Wood 1996). In debranning, the grains are first conditioned for
a short time, which then allows layer-by-layer separation of the outer grain
layers, resulting in the by-products pericarp and aleurone. The relatively pure
aleurone fraction from the process is enriched in protein (19.0%) compared
with the first outmost layer removed (12.9%) (Rizzello et al. 2012).
Figure 3. A longitudinal microscopy image of a (rice) grain from the ventral (front) side of the grain, as
well as a closer image of the outer grain layers stained with Acid Fuchsin and Calcofluor White, showing proteins as red and cell wall glucans as blue, respectively. The pericarp layer appears as light green and yellowish, and the orange strand indicates the cutin layer. The starch is unstained and appears black (image courtesy of VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Dr. Ulla Holopainen-Mantila).
The separation of bran and germ from brown rice is carried out by pearling,
after which the pearled grains can be further polished to remove remnants of
the bran resulting in the white rice (i.e. the head rice). Rice bran and polish
represent approximately 8 and 2% of paddy rice, respectively, the amounts of
which vary depending on the applied milling procedures (Fujino 1978; Marshall
and Wadsworth 1993; Saunders 1990). Dry milling of brown rice results in a
combination of bran, germ and polish fractions, which are together called rice
19
bran. The main product from rice milling, white rice, is usually consumed
directly as food. Prior to the dehulling or bran removal steps, the rice grain can
be parboiled (i.e. soaked and boiled or steamed) to facilitate nutrient
absorption from the outer grain layers into the endosperm, which fortifies the
white rice with water-soluble vitamins (Juliano 1993).
As reviewed by Chinma et al. (2015), relatively large compositional
variations are observed within each cereal bran (Table 2). The starch content
of the brans differs due to the milling procedures applied for the bran
separation, and wheat, rice and rye brans contain 9–25%, 10–20% and 13–
40% starch, respectively (Kamal-Eldin et al. 2009; Nordlund et al. 2013b;
Saunders 1990). Rice bran exhibits the highest oil and ash content of these
three brans (Chinma et al. 2015; Juliano and Bechtel 1985). DF is the most
abundant in wheat bran, and for all brans, DF is mainly composed of insoluble
dietary fibre (IDF) (Abdul-Hamid and Luan 2000; Chinma et al. 2015). In wheat
and rye brans, arabinoxylan is the most abundant DF class, representing 19–
30% and 16–25% of the bran, respectively, and other bran cell wall
constituents include cellulose, fructan, β-glucan and lignin (Bataillon et al.
1998; Kamal-Eldin et al. 2009; Nordlund et al. 2012). In rice bran,
hemicelluloses (mainly arabinoxylan), cellulose and lignin are the most
prominent cell wall components, constituting 40, 30 and 21% of the cell wall,
respectively. In addition, pectin is present, and the β-glucan content is
negligible (Shibuya et al. 1985). Bran proteins are discussed in more detail in
Section 2.3.1.
Table 2. The biochemical composition of wheat, rice and rye brans.
Wheat bran Rice bran Rye bran
Protein (% dm) 10–17a 12–16a 15a
Total dietary fibre (% dm) 48a 27b 36a
Soluble dietary fibre (% dm) 2a 2b 5a
Insoluble dietary fibre (% dm) 46a 25b 31a
Ash (% dm) 4–7a 7–10a 4a
Fat (% dm) 3–5a 17–23c 3a
Carbohydrates (% dm) 51–59a 31–52a 58a
dm: dry matter. a reviewed by Chinma et al. (2015). b according to Abdul-Hamid and Luan (2000). c reviewed by Juliano and Bechtel (1985).
2.1.2 SIDE STREAMS FROM OTHER DRY SEPARATION PROCESSES
OF CEREAL MATERIALS
The dry separation processes of cereal grains can target the enrichment of
one or more main grain components, such as DF, protein or starch. In the
simplest approaches, milling is combined with one or several sieving steps in
order to enrich fibres in the largest particle-sized coarse fraction while protein
or starch enrich in the small-sized fine fraction. In addition to sieving, the
Review of the literature
20
separation of components may also be obtained via air classification
(discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.2). Both of these techniques can also
be applied for bran separation from whole grain (such as oat) flours (Girardet
and Webster 2011). Another example is the enrichment of β-glucan from β-
glucan-rich grains, barley and oats, reported by several authors and in various
patented processes (Andersson et al. 2000; Kaukovirta-Norja et al. 2008;
Knuckles and Chiu 1995; Lehtomäki and Myllymäki 2010; Mälkki et al. 2001;
Nordlund et al. 2012; Sibakov et al. 2011; Vasanthan and Bhatty 1995; Wu et
al. 1994; Wu and Doehlert 2002). Moreover, the processes may also aim at
protein or starch enrichment.
DF enrichment from cereal grains by dry means produces side stream
fractions that are high in other nutritionally valuable components, such as
protein and starch. These fractionation processes often consist of multiple
separation steps. In general, for barley and oat or oat bran fractionations, it
can be stated that the first fine fractions in these processes are typically
enriched in protein whereas DF and β-glucan enrichment occurs in the last
steps, into coarse fractions (Vasanthan and Bhatty 1995; Wu et al. 1994; Wu
and Doehlert 2002). Starch and DF fractionate first together, and later, when
targeting the separation of DF from starch, starch is enriched in the fine
fraction (Vasanthan and Bhatty 1995). Thus, considerable amounts of
fractions containing components other than the target components are
produced. Furthermore, in the fractionation processes of barley and oats, the
DF content often decreases when starch content increases and vice versa
(Wu et al. 1994; Wu and Doehlert 2002). Valorisation of these generated side
streams by further enriching desirable components is regarded to be a
promising approach to improve the food applicability of the side stream
fraction. In the patented process described by Kaukovirta-Norja et al. (2008),
non-heat-treated oats extracted by supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) are
fractionated in a two-step air classification or sieving process to obtain a
fraction with 25–60% β-glucan content. The starch-enriched, starchy
endosperm-derived fraction from the first fractionation step (i.e. the side
stream from β-glucan extraction) can be further dry fractionated to obtain a
fine fraction enriched in protein (up to 30–80%) and having an over 50% lower
carbon footprint (kg/protein) when compared with dairy proteins (as analysed
in a life cycle assessment-based study by Heusala et al. 2019).
2.1.3 OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF CEREAL SIDE
STREAMS FOR FOOD USE
The side streams from dry cereal grain processing, including brans and other
residual fractions, are valuable for food use for various reasons. Brans contain
significant amounts of nutritionally relevant components, such as proteins, DF,
vitamins and minerals (Chinma et al. 2015). In particular, the aleurone layers
of cereal brans contain higher amounts of protein than the outer grain layers
or starchy endosperm (Buri et al. 2004; Bushuk 2001; Juliano and Bechtel
21
1985). Moreover, the nutritional quality of wheat and rice aleurone proteins is
regarded to be superior to that of the starchy endosperm proteins owing to the
elevated amount of the essential and normally limiting amino acid in cereal
grains, lysine, present in the aleurone (Buri et al. 2004; Han et al. 2015; Wang
et al. 1999). As reviewed for wheat bran by Hemery et al. (2007), the outer
grain layers, pericarp, seed coat and aleurone, are also enriched in DF,
vitamins B and E, and minerals, as well as phenolic constituents and
antioxidants.
The main drawbacks in the food applicability of cereal brans include their
negative impact on the flavour and aftertaste of food products (Heiniö et al.
2016, 2003; Nordlund et al. 2013a) and their limited techno-functional
properties (Rosa-Sibakov et al. 2015a). In addition to beneficial grain
components, antinutritional factors are also enriched in the outer grain layers
(Fardet 2010; Hemery et al. 2007). Phytic acid (myo-inositol
hexakisphosphate), the main storage form of phosphorus in plants, is known
to bind minerals and proteins due to their opposite charges, thus potentially
having a negative impact on bioavailability (Kies et al. 2006; Selle et al. 2000).
Phytic acid is mainly located in aleurone grains in rice, wheat and rye brans
(Antoine et al. 2004b; Bohn et al. 2007; Parker 1981), which may reduce bran
protein bioavailability. Other antinutritional factors located in bran include
trypsin inhibitors, polyphenols, oxalates, saponins, lipases and
haemagglutinin (Fardet 2010; Kaur et al. 2015). On the other hand, some of
the beneficial bioactive bran components may be entrapped within the bran
matrix and are thus not bioavailable (Fardet 2010). Outer grain layers may
also include contaminations, such as microbes, mycotoxins, heavy metals and
pesticides (Hemery et al. 2007; Laca et al. 2006). In regard to rice, the high
lipid content, rendering the bran prone to rancidification due to presence of
lipid-modifying enzymes in the native bran, restricts its food use (Malekian et
al. 2000). Lipid oxidation is usually prevented by stabilising the full-fat bran
using heat treatments, such as extrusion or parboiling. Another approach to
avoid lipid oxidation is the removal of the bran oils by using, for example,
solvent extraction. However, heat treatment, typically included in both
stabilisation and extraction phases, negatively affects the bran quality by, for
example, lowering protein solubility (Anderson and Guraya, 2001) and altering
the amino acid profile (Gnanasambandam and Hettiarachchy, 1995). Other
factors limiting the food use of rice bran are its potentially high microbial load
and high content of silica due to hull contamination (Oliveira et al. 2012).
2.2 DRY FRACTIONATION OF CEREAL GRAINS
Dry processing to separate the components of plant materials has gained
interest due to sustainability and energy-efficiency reasons, especially in
regard to plant protein concentration. Dry fractionation technologies, including
the unit operations of dry milling, air classification, sieving and electrostatic
Review of the literature
22
separation, for protein enrichment from low-moisture plant materials consume
considerably less energy compared with wet fractionation (i.e. aqueous
extraction of proteins), as reviewed in Schutyser et al. (2015) and Schutyser
and van der Goot (2011). The increased energy consumption in wet
processing derives from the sum of the energy used in the milling, solid–liquid
separation, precipitation and drying steps, of which drying is the most energy-
intensive step. Moreover, the employment of harsh treatment conditions, such
as high alkaline pH, high temperature and organic solvents, in wet extraction
negatively affects both technological and nutritional quality of plant proteins
(Deleu et al. 2019; Finley and Kohler 1979; Kornet et al. 2021; Wu and Inglett
1974). On the contrary, dry fractionation yields macromolecules that remain in
native conditions, and also, retains most of the micronutrients during
processing. Unit operations involved in dry fractionation processes are
elucidated in the following Sections 2.2.1–2.2.4.
2.2.1 DRY MILLING FOR PARTICLE SIZE REDUCTION
Particle size reduction is a key unit operation in the dry processing of cereal
raw materials. In addition to the term dry milling referring to the processes
employed for refined flour production, it is also applied when performing
particle size reduction for cereal raw materials by dry means. For that purpose,
the milling is usually carried out using roller mills, hammer mills, impact mills
(such as pin disc mills) or jet mills. The selection of mill is based on the targeted
particle size distribution and following ingredient processing (namely,
application in different food categories or as a raw material in dry fractionation).
The level of particle size reduction also affects the properties of the further
fractionated ingredients (see Sections 2.2.2–2.2.4).
Reduction of particle size has a prominent impact on the food applicability
of cereal ingredients via modifications of the techno-functional, sensory and/or
nutritional qualities. Effective milling may modify IDF into soluble dietary fibre
(SDF), as has been reported in literature on wheat brans (Junejo et al. 2019;
Van Craeyveld et al. 2009; Zhu et al. 2010) and rye brans (Alam et al. 2014).
Similarly, impactful milling results in increased amounts of damaged starch in
cereal flours (Berton et al. 2002; Drakos et al. 2017a; Niu et al. 2014; Tester
1997). This may in turn alter the functional and rheological properties of starch,
for example, by increasing the water absorption of the flours (Berton et al.
2002; Drakos et al. 2017a; Niu et al. 2014), and by affecting the behaviour of
the dough (Barrera et al. 2007) and starch susceptibility to hydrolysis by α-
amylases during bread making (Barrera et al. 2016). Particle size reduction
also has varying impacts on the techno-functional properties of proteins. The
liberation of protein components from inside the insoluble and hard wheat bran
cell wall structures by ball milling results in increased protein solubility (De
Brier et al. 2015). Similarly, protein extractability from defatted rice bran at pH
11 increased from 59 to 69% as a result of roller milling (Prakash and
Ramanatham 1994). On the contrary, too intensive jet milling has been linked
23
with the reduced solubility of rye flour proteins (Drakos et al. 2017b) as harsher
grinding conditions are associated with heat generation modifying protein
properties or resulting in aggregation of the polymers (Van Craeyveld et al.
2009). Particle size reduction also alters hydration properties, and oil binding
capacity (OBC) and water binding capacity (WBC) of cereal ingredients.
Wheat brans with a smaller particle size have been shown to exhibit lower
WBC due to modification of the fibrous matric structure and the potential
impact of particle size reduction on the properties of biomolecules (Auffret et
al. 1994; De Bondt et al. 2020; Zhang and Moore 1997; Zhu et al. 2010)
whereas, for some materials, the opposite may also apply as surface area
increases (as reviewed by Elleuch et al. 2011). Similarly, lowered physical
entrapment of oil, that is, lowered OBC, has been attributed to the reduced
particle size of rye flour (Drakos et al. 2017a).
Particle size considerably affects the technological properties of cereal
ingredients, especially brans. For example, their behaviour in baking and
extrusion, as well as dispersion stability in high-moisture food systems are
altered, as reviewed by Doblado-Maldonado et al. (2012) and Chinma et al.
(2015), and the impact of particle size varies depending on the application
studied. The modified food applicability of ingredients with different particle
sizes results from the biochemical and physical modifications caused by the
milling. Further, the mechanical liberation of cell constituents from the grain
structures also affects the technological ingredient properties. The
incorporation of wheat bran of various particle sizes into wheat bread has
revealed ambiguous effects on bread-making quality and dough-mixing
properties. In general, addition of bran impairs bread quality, but opposing
impacts of the particle size on, for example, dough development time have
been reported (Coda et al. 2014a; Jacobs et al. 2016). Regarding the impact
of particle size on bread volume, findings suggesting both an optimal particle
size (Coda et al. 2014a) and the negligible impact of the size (Curti et al. 2013)
have been reported. In the study by Noort et al. (2010), the negative impact of
finely milled bran on bread-making quality was postulated to potentially result
from the increased surface area of the bran particles increasing the
susceptibility to interactions and the release of reactive compounds affecting
gluten network formation. In extrusion, the reduction of bran particle size
increased the expansion, crispiness and porousness of puffed rye bran
extrudates (Alam et al. 2014). In regard to high-moisture food systems, particle
size has a prominent role in the solubilisation of the components and, further,
in the stability of the systems. The improved colloidal stability of cereal
ingredient dispersions has been reported to result from, for example, the
microfludisation-aided particle size reduction of wheat bran (De Bondt et al.
2020; Rosa-Sibakov et al. 2015b). In addition, the particle size reduction of
bran ingredients results in improved mouthfeel (Coda et al. 2014a).
Decreasing particle size may also improve the bioavailability of micro- and
macronutrients, as reviewed by Capuano and Pellegrini (2019), Hemery et al.
(2007) and Joye (2019). Junejo et al. (2019) reported wheat bran to be more
Review of the literature
24
prone to α-amylase, pepsin and pancreatin enzymes after ultra-fine milling
compared with non- or coarsely milled bran, and Latunde-Dada et al. (2014)
showed 52% higher iron bioavailability from micro-milled wheat aleurone flour
than from lesser milled wheat aleurone flour. Likewise, the antioxidant capacity
of wheat bran was shown to increase as a result of particle size reduction due
to the improved exposure of the phenolic residues responsible for the
antioxidant properties (Rosa et al. 2013), and the use of finer bran in breads
has improved the bioaccessibility of phenolic acids (Hemery et al. 2010). Coda
et al. (2014b) observed that, for wheat bran, micronisation to the median
particle size of 400 µm was optimal when considering the in vitro protein
digestibility, while lower digestibilities were reached for brans with both the
smaller and larger particle size medians of 750, 160 and 50 µm.
Milling for the disintegration of the cellular grain structures is a prerequisite
for successful component separation in dry fractionation. Requirements for
particle size reduction prior to subsequent dry fractionation are dependent on
the raw material properties and desired component separation, and usually a
different size reduction level is targeted when aiming at protein, fibre or
histological component enrichment. Moreover, the selection of milling
technique may affect the amount of damaged starch formed, result in mono-
or bimodal particle size distribution and have a significant impact on the
material flowability inside the fractionation equipment (Tenou et al. 1999). The
different approaches for the dry fractionation of cereal materials are introduced
in more detail in the following sub-sections (Sections 2.2.2–2.2.4).
2.2.2 AIR CLASSIFICATION FOR CEREAL COMPONENT
FRACTIONATION
Air classification is a dry separation method based on the fractionation of
heterogeneous particles from a solid disperse phase into two fractions, fine
and coarse fractions, due to the settling velocities of the particles which are
determined by their sizes, densities and shapes (Furchner and Zampini 2012;
Schutyser and van der Goot 2011). For plant material fractionation, the most
commonly utilised air classifiers are centrifugal classifiers (i.e. deflector-wheel
air classifiers; Figure 4), in which the drag forces of the air cause the transfer
of the fine particles through the classifier wheel until they reach a cyclone,
while for coarse particles, the centrifugal forces predominate and restrict
particle transfer through the wheel, resulting in their gravitation downwards.
Adjustments to the targeted particle size range of the fractions are made by
modifying the classifier wheel speed, which determines the material
fractionation, whereas the air flow rate is usually kept constant and high unless
an extremely fine particle size of the fine fraction is desired, as reviewed by
Furchner and Zampini (2012). Another important aspect in air classification is
the optimisation of the inlet material particle size, which determines the
behaviour and fractionation of the material during air classification. In
separation aiming at protein enrichment, the cut size (i.e. the particle size that
25
has a 50% probability to enter to both fine and coarse fractions) is generally
10 µm (Schutyser and van der Goot 2011). The performance of the air
classification process is evaluated by determining mass yields and the
component concentrations in the fractions, as well as component separation
efficiencies, such as protein separation efficiency (PSE) and starch separation
efficiency (SSE) (Tyler et al. 1981). The scalability of air classification is
considered to be good due to the relatively high production capacity, reaching
500 t/h for the fine fraction at industrial scale, compared with 100 g/h at
laboratory/pilot scale (Furchner and Zampini 2012).
Figure 4. A photograph of a Hosokawa-Alpine 50 ATP air classifier, including a schematic presentation
of the material flow and adjustable processing parameters of the equipment (image courtesy of VTT).
In food technology, air classification has been successfully utilised for protein,
starch and fibre separation and enrichment. The targeted end-product
properties (i.e. it being enriched in protein, starch or fibre) determine whether
it is the fine or the coarse fraction that is considered the final product. However,
from process feasibility and sustainability perspectives, it is important to
consider the applicability of both fractions and determine suitable product and
application opportunities for each fraction. In addition to component
fractionation, air classification has also been employed for the histological
separation of different grain components and, more specifically, bran layers.
For example, Bohm et al. (2003) described a dry process for wheat bran that
included tempering and several dry processing steps (milling, air classification,
electrostatic separation) that allowed the production of a relatively pure
aleurone ingredient that was free from other bran components.
Protein enrichment by air classification from plant materials has been
investigated especially in the case of pulses in which the main individual sub-
cellular components (starch granules and protein bodies) considerably differ
in their sizes. The rather monomodal and large size distribution of starch
Review of the literature
26
granules in pulses allows their better separation from small-sized protein
bodies when compared with cereal grains in which the starch granules mostly
exhibit bimodal size distributions (Schutyser and van der Goot 2011). In rice,
free starch granules are particularly small (3–9 µm) whereas multiple granules
may be present within one amyloplast, sizing 7–39 µm (Juliano 1985; Saio and
Noguchi 1983). In wheat, rye and barley, starch is present as large A-type
granules (up to 40, 48 and 50 µm, respectively) and smaller B-type granules
(up to 10, 12 and 10 µm, respectively) (Goering et al. 1973; Heneen and
Brismar 1987; Takeda et al. 1999), which usually results in their fractionation
during air classification into coarse and fine fractions, respectively (Vasanthan
and Bhatty 1995). Moreover, cereal endosperm structure further hinders
protein fractionation due to the embedment of small starch granules within a
matrix formed of storage proteins (Darlington et al. 2000). In the aleurone and
subaleurone region of the endosperm, cereal proteins are located inside small-
sized (0.5–5 µm) protein bodies (Juliano and Bechtel 1985; Pernollet 1978),
the sizes of which partially overlap with small starch granules.
Despite the previously described factors hindering protein fractionation
from cereal grains, various attempts at enriching protein have been reported.
Research has mainly concentrated on the fractionation of endosperm or whole
grain flours, whereas only a little research is available on bran protein
enrichment. Table 3 shows multiple examples of the air classification of cereal
grains for protein enrichment, revealing the protein contents, mass yields and
protein separation efficiencies obtained in fractionation, and it also
discriminates the processing steps applied prior to air classification. As
summarised in Table 3, the highest protein content obtained from wheat, rice
and barley varies between 16–40%, whereas significantly higher content of
73–83% is reported for oats (Sibakov et al. 2011; Wu and Stringfellow 1973).
However, the distinctive feature of air classification related to the relationship
between the mass yield and protein content of the protein-enriched fine
fraction is observed, especially in the research related to oats, in which the
high protein contents are obtained at the expense of the low mass yields and
PSEs of the protein-enriched fraction (Sibakov et al. 2011; Wu and
Stringfellow 1973). It is noteworthy that relatively little or no research is
available concerning the air classification of other cereal grains, such as corn
(Garcia et al. 1972) or sorghum (Stringfellow and Peplinski 1966).
27
Table 3. Examples of protein and starch enrichment from cereal grains by air classification, including information about the raw material, pre-treatments, number of air
classifications performed and the contents, yields and component-separation efficiencies in the produced fractions.
Raw material
Content in raw material (% dm)
Pre-treatment Fraction obtained during
Contents in the fine fraction (% dm)
Contents in the coarse fraction (% dm)
Mass yield of the fine fraction (%)
Mass yield of the coarse fraction (%)
PSE in the fine fraction (%), SSE in the coarse fraction (%)
Reference
Wheat Protein: 10–18; starch: na
3 x 14 000 rpm pin disc milling
2nd step of a 5-step AC
Protein: 23–33 na 11–25 na PSE: 22–45* Wu & Stringfellow (1992)
Wheat bran
Protein: 14.9; starch: na
Grinding Combination of fine fractions from 2-step process (1st coarse reprocessed)
Protein: 22.1 na 14 na PSE: 20.8* Ranhotra et al. (1994)
Wheat Protein: 11.4–12.5; starch: na
Jet milling of raw material before AC and coarse fractions after AC
1-5 steps of ACs Protein after 1st AC: 20.7–22.9
Protein after the 5th AC: 1.5–2.5
after the 5th AC: 3.5–4.4
after the 5th AC: 24.4–29.5
Total PSE to the coarse fraction after the 5th AC: 3.9–4.9*
Létang et al. (2002)
Wheat Protein: 12.9; starch: na
Commercial wheat flour
1-step AC Protein: 17.5 Protein: 12.7 10 90 PSE: 13.6* Lundgren (2011)
Rice flour Protein: 14; starch: na
Grain polished to 75%
1-step AC Protein: 17.5 na na na na Noguchi et al. (1981)
Flour from polished rice
Protein: 7.4; starch: na
Frozen milling by impact mill followed by 2 x jet milling
1-step AC Protein: 9.7 Protein: 4.7 45 55 PSE: 59.0* Saio & Noguchi (1983)
Rice bran Protein: 14.7; starch: na
Sonication-aided hexane defatting and impact milling
1-step AC of <73 µm material or jet milling and one-step AC of <73 µm material
Protein: 15.6–16.2
Protein: 13.8–14.5
na na na Saio & Noguchi (1983)
Rice flour Protein: na; starch: na
Fluidised bed opposed jet milling
1-step AC Protein: 19.8 Protein: 10.0 na na na Park et al. (1993)
Barley, dehulled
Protein: 14.8; starch: 68
Pin disc milling 1-step AC Protein: 40.1; starch: 34
Protein: 10.2; starch: 72
17.5 82.5 PSE: 47.4*, SSE: 87.4*
Vose & Youngs (1978)
Review of the literature
28
Malted barley, dehulled
Protein: 11.7; starch: 60
Pin disc milling 1-step AC Protein: 26.8; starch: 38
Protein: 9.5; starch: 64
15.6 84.4 PSE: 35.7*; SSE: 90.0*
Vose & Youngs (1978)
Hulless barley
Protein: 22.4; starch: 24.8
Defatting, pin disc milling
5-step AC Protein: 26.8 in the 1st fine fraction; starch: 42.5
na 22.0 na PSE: 26.3* Wu et al. (1994)
Dehulled barley
Protein: 10.9; starch: 66.2
Pin disc milling 5-step AC Protein: 23.1–28.4 in the 1st fine fraction; starch: 57.3–60.5
na 4.7–8.0 na PSE: 15.4* Wu et al. (1994)
Hulless barley
Protein: 18.6; starch: 54.5
Pin disc milling 5-step AC Protein: 28.5 in the 1st fine fraction; starch: 52.6
na 9.4 na PSE: 14.4* Wu et al. (1994)
Barley Protein: 12.3–13.6; starch: 53.6–62.0
Pin disc milling 3-step AC Protein: 17.5–27.7 in the 1st fine fraction
Starch: 59.1–70.5 in the 1st coarse fraction
6.8–22.8 75.1–87.0 PSE: 15.0–32.4*; SSE: 83.9–98.9*
Vasanthan & Bhatty (1995)
Barley Protein: 9.0–17.6; starch: 31.0–63.7
0.7 mm sieve milling and impact milling
5-step AC Protein: 14.0–20.6 in the 1st fine fraction
Starch enriched in the 3rd fine fraction, content: 70–80%
15.3–36.1 na PSE: 15.1–51.2*
A. A M Andersson et al. (2000)
Dehulled oat grain (i.e. oat groat)
Protein: 16.3–22.7; starch: na
Pentane-hexane defatting, pin disc milling
1st step of AC Protein: 83.1–83.3 in the filter fraction, 20.8–29.4 in the fine fraction
na filter fraction: 2; fine fraction: 26
na PSE: filter fraction 7.3–10.2; fine fraction 33.2–33.7*
Wu & Stringfellow (1973)
Non-heat-treated, dehulled oat
Protein 17.2; starch: 65.6
SC-CO2 extraction, pin disc milling
2-step AC 2nd step fine fraction, protein: 73.0; starch: 17.1
2nd step coarse fraction, protein: 10.7; starch: 77.2
5.0 76.0 PSE: 21.2*; SSE: 89.4*
Sibakov et al. (2011)
dm: dry matter; PSE: protein separation efficiency; SSE: starch separation efficiency; na: not analysed; * calculated in this work based on the data provided in the article; AC: air classification.
29
The fractionation of DF by air classification, especially from cereals rich in β-
glucan, such as oats and barley, has been extensively studied and Table 4
collects examples on those fractionations found in literature. The enrichment
of DF takes place in the coarse fraction in air classification and multiple rounds
of subsequent air classifications, which commonly include milling steps in
between the air classifications, facilitate the separation. This is seen as an
increase in the obtained DF content, whereas the mass yield decreases.
Indeed, the reported air classification processes have mainly relied on multiple
separation steps and have allowed β-glucan enrichment up to 24, 31, 34 and
40% from dehulled barley, hulless and defatted barley, defatted oat groats and
defatted oat bran, respectively (Sibakov et al. 2014, 2011; Vasanthan and
Bhatty 1995; Wu et al. 1994). In addition, successful enrichment and recovery
of DF has been obtained from rye bran and kernels (Nordlund et al. 2013b,
2013a).
Studies targeting understanding the simultaneous behaviour of protein and
DF in air classification remain scarce. Regarding the concurrent fractionation
of other grain components, the enrichment of lipids (Chung et al. 2002; Létang
et al. 2002; Ranhotra et al. 1994), damaged starch (Létang et al. 2002), and
vitamins and phytic acid (Ranhotra et al. 1994) in the protein-enriched wheat
flour fractions has been reported. Additionally, an increase in the ratio between
SDF and IDF has been detected in the protein-enriched fraction (Létang et al.
2002; Ranhotra et al. 1992). Furthermore, the contents of all essential and
semi-essential amino acids were shown to be higher in the protein fraction
than in the original wheat bran, and for example, the amount of lysine was
44% higher and the protein efficiency ratio of 1.8 was close to that of casein
(2.5) and exceeded the values reported earlier for wheat flour and bran (1.0–
1.5) (Ranhotra et al. 1994).
Review of the literature
30
Table 4. Examples of dietary fibre enrichment from cereal grains by air classification, including information about the raw material, pre-treatments, number of air classifications
performed, and contents, yields and component separation efficiencies in the produced fractions.
Raw material β-glucan content in raw material (% dm)
Pre-treatment
Amount of processing steps
β-glucan content in the fine fraction (% dm)
β-glucan content in the coarse fraction (% dm)
Mass yield of the fine fraction (%)
Mass yield of the coarse fraction (%)
β-glucan separation efficiency (%) into the coarse fraction
Reference
Hulless barley 19.6 Defatting, pin
disc milling
5-step AC 37.9 in the 4th
fine fraction
31.3 in the 5th
coarse fraction
5.0 31.0 49.5* Wu et al.
(1994)
Dehulled barley 5.8 Pin disc
milling
5-step AC 9.1 in the 4th
fine fraction
14.7 in the 5th
coarse fraction
19.3 13.2 33.5* Wu et al.
(1994)
Hulless barley 8.0 Pin disc
milling
5-step AC 8.1 in the 4th
fine fraction
14.6 in the 5th
coarse fraction
14.3 27.3 49.8* Wu et al.
(1994)
Hulless or
dehulled
barleys
5.9–7.8 Pin disc
milling
3-step AC 6.5–8.1 in the
3rd fine
fraction
13.1–23.8 in the 3rd
coarse fraction
43.7–63.4 7.6–20.9 23.1–58.7* Vasanthan
& Bhatty
(1995)
Covered and
naked barleys
3.8–17.0 0.7 mm sieve
milling and
impact milling
5-step AC 8.0–23.0 in
the 5th fine
fraction
4.5–23.5 in the 5th
coarse fraction
8.0–33.4 2.0–9.4 Fine fraction: 16.8–
45.2*; coarse
fraction: 3.5–11.9*
Andersson
et al. (2000)
Hulless barley 5.4–7.8
(TDF:
11.5–
12.8)
Impact milling 1- and 2-step
AC
na 1st step coarse
fraction: 8.1–11.1
(TDF: 23.4–25.5);
coarse fraction from
the re-fractionation
of the 1st step fine
fraction: 11.2–15.6
(TDF: 21.8–25.5)
1st: 79.6–
83.5; 2nd:
53.7–61.2
1st: 10.4–
16.5; 2nd:
28.4–29.8
1st step coarse
fraction: 14.8–24.8
(TDF: 20.7–33.6)*;
coarse fraction
from the re-
fractionation of the
1st step fine
fraction: 56.8–61.8
(TDF: 56.5–56.6)*
Ferrari et al.
(2009)
31
Dehulled and
pearled waxy
barley
9.0 Pin disc
milling
1-step AC 5.2 15.3 70 30 51.0* Messia et al.
(2020)
Oat bran
(dehulled,
steamed and
hexane-
extracted oats)
12.6 Pin disc
milling
4-step AC 4th fine
fraction: 10.8
4th coarse fraction:
18.8
4th fine
fraction:
4.7
4th coarse
fraction:
39.3
58.6* Wu &
Doehlert
(2002)
Non-heat-
treated
dehulled oat
3.2 SC-CO2
extraction, pin
disc milling
2-step AC 1st step: 1.3;
2nd step: 11.4
1st step: 21.3; 2nd
step: 33.9
1st step:
81.0; 2nd
step: 6.5
1st step:
14.3; 2nd
step: 7.8
1st step: 95.2*; 2nd
step: 82.6*
Sibakov et
al. (2011)
Non-heat-
treated SC-
CO2-defatted
dehulled oat
35.0 Ultra-fine
milling
1-step AC 11.1 40.3 15.4 84.6 97.4* Sibakov et
al. (2014)
Oat bran 7.6 (total
DF: 14.9)
Pin disc
milling
3-step AC and
air jet sieving
na 15.1 (total DF:
28.9)
na na na Nordlund et
al. (2012)
SC-CO2-
defatted oat
bran
14.3 Pin disc
milling
5-step AC 4.3–14.7 in
the the 4 fine
fractions
22.4 na na na Stevenson
et al. (2008)
Rye kernels SDF: 4.7;
IDF: 11.7
0.3 mm sieve
milling
2-step AC SDF: 4.9;
IDF: 9.4
SDF: 7.9; IDF: 27.6 43 29 SDF: 48.7; IDF:
68.4
Nordlund et
al. (2013a)
dm: dry matter; * calculated in this work based on the data provided in the article; AC: air classification; TDF: total dietary fibre; SC-CO2: supercritical carbon dioxide; na: not analysed; SDF: soluble dietary fibre; IDF: insoluble dietary fibre.
Review of the literature
32
2.2.3 COMPARISON OF DRY SEPARATION PROCESSES FOR
FRACTIONATION OF COMPONENTS FROM CEREAL GRAINS
In addition to air classification, dry separation of cereal grain components can
be achieved by sieving or applying electrostatic separation. In this section,
these two methods are shortly presented, and their advantages and
disadvantages when compared with air classification are evaluated in Table 5.
Sieving is a traditional dry fractionation method, employed for the
separation of particles based on their sizes between one or several meshes of
decreasing size. Sieving is considered the method with the most potential for
dry particle separation when the particles exhibit sizes larger than 100–200
µm. Rhodes (2008) reviewed that normal or air-jet sieve sizes larger than 45
and 20 µm, respectively, provide reliable results in sieving-based particle size
analysis. As reviewed by Furchner and Zampini (2012), sieving is
technologically easier to carry out than air classification and requires less
energy. However, the main limitations in sieving include clogging or blinding
of the sieves, especially with high-fat and ultra-fine materials, and the
separation mechanism being limited to only separating according to the size
and shape differences of the particles. As proteins are found in the finest-sized
particles and fibrous plant cell wall materials usually remain in larger cellular
integrities, size-based separation and the enrichment of protein and fibre in
the fine and coarse fractions, respectively, may be achieved via sieving
(Schutyser and van der Goot 2011).
The fractionation of components in an electrostatic separator takes place
as a result of differing electrical charges that the components receive during a
charging step. The charges obtained are component and species specific and
are mainly affected by the surface properties of the materials, such as surface
chemistry, electrical conductivity and dielectric properties (Flynn et al. 2019;
Mazumder et al. 2006; Németh et al. 2003). Plant material fractionation by
electrostatic separation is based on either conductive induction, ion or corona
charging, or tribo-charging. As reviewed by Barakat and Mayer-Laigle (2017),
in a parallel-plate tribo-electrostatic separator particles are tribo-charged as a
result of collisions of the particles with both each other and the equipment
walls inside the charging pipe, and fractionation takes place in a separation
chamber where the positively and negatively charged particles adhere to the
high voltage electrodes of opposite charges and uncharged particles separate
by gravity. In conductive belt or drum separators, particles with different
conductivities are separated from each other (Flynn et al. 2019; Higashiyama
and Asano 1998).
33
Table 5. Comparison of dry fractionation approaches.
Property Air classification Sieving Electrostatic
separation
References
Separation
principle
Size, density and
shape of particles
Size and shape of
particles
Electrical charging
properties of particles
Furchner &
Zampini (2012)
Optimal
raw mate-
rial particle
size
1–200 µm Preferably larger than
100–200 µm; normal
dry sieve sizes >45 µm
and air jet sieve sizes
>20 µm are applicable
for particle separation
Smaller particles ob-
tain higher charges,
corona-belt separa-
tors are only
applicable for large
particles
Furchner &
Zampini (2012),
Hemery et al.
(2009), J.
Wang et al.
(2014; 2015a),
Rhodes (2008)
Energy re-
quirements
0.01–1 MJ/kg
during milling to
median particle
sizes 100–1 µm,
3–44 kJ/kg for air
classification (of
pulse protein)
Requires the least en-
ergy and is technolog-
ically the easiest to be
carried out
No information avail-
able
Furchner &
Zampini (2012),
Schutyser &
van der Goot
(2011), Wang &
Forssberg
(2007)
Protein
separation
More applicable
to pulses than ce-
real grains. Sepa-
ration of individual
protein bodies (1–
5 µm) is possible.
Limited due to the mini-
mum particle size
reachable (~20 µm)
More suitable for oil-
rich pulses or oilseed
press cakes, moder-
ate enrichment from
cereal grains and
starch-rich pulses
Pelgrom et al.
(2013, 2015),
Assatory et al.
(2019), Laguna
et al. (2018)
Dietary
fibre
separation
Suitable for cereal
grains, especially
brans
Suitable for cereal
grains, especially brans
Generally not much
more efficient than
sieving
Wu et al.
(1994), Wang
et al. (2016)
Industrial
scalability
Industrial scale
production exists,
90 000 t/a
Applicable in industrial-
scale mills
Commercially signifi-
cant processing rates
not yet reached
Flynn et al.
(2019),
Schutyser et al.
(2015)
Factors
affecting
separation
Similar sizes and
densities of the
particles that are
to be separated
(i.e. small starch
granules and
protein bodies)
and high fat con-
tent of the mate-
rial hinder
separation
Clogging of the sieves
(high-fat, ultra-fine),
material amount, time,
horizontal and vertical
sieve movements,
sieve amounts, mois-
ture content, particle
size, pre-milling steps
and the composition of
the raw material
Similar charges
restrict separation,
charging properties
are species specific,
the agglomeration of
oppositely charged
components and lipid
liberation hinders
separation, humidity
and water content
affect charging
Pelgrom et al.
(2015), Wang
et al. (2016), J.
Wang et al.
(2015a),
Nomura et al.
(2003)
Review of the literature
34
Both the electrostatic separation and sieving studies reported in literature for
cereal grains have mostly concentrated on DF enrichment. DF enrichment by
electrostatic separation has been achieved for defatted and pin disc-milled rice
bran (from 32 to 52% DF with a mass yield of 44% in a one-step process and
from 32 to 67% DF with a mass yield of 21% in a two-step process) (Wang et
al. 2016) and pin disc-milled wheat bran (from 23 to 31% DF with 16% mass
yield) (J. Wang et al. 2015b), whereas the same authors revealed more
successful separation by using only a simplier air jet sieving (68% DF with
22% mass yield for rice bran and 31% DF with 45% mass yield for wheat bran).
Protein content was not considerably changed in any of the fractions (J. Wang
et al. 2015b; Wang et al. 2016). For wheat bran, further improvements were
obtained by adding an air jet sieving step after the electrostatic separation,
which resulted in arabinoxylan content of 43% with an 8% mass yield (J. Wang
et al. 2015b). Similar data supporting better DF enrichment by sieving than by
air classification has also been reported for barley (Knuckles and Chiu 1995).
On the contrary, Wu et al. (1994) observed for non-defatted and defatted high-
β-glucan barley variety samples β-glucan enrichment from 17.4–19.6 to 24.6–
28.3% in a sieving fraction with approximately 5% mass yield, whereas higher
β-glucan contents and mass yields were obtained by air classification. In
regard to oats, the sieving of a defatted and pin disc-milled oat bran allowed
the production of several fractions with β-glucan content of 19.9–20.7%
compared with 11.1% in the raw material (Wu and Doehlert 2002). Higher
contents were reached in electrostatic separation by Sibakov et al. (2014) who
demonstrated that defatting enhanced β-glucan separation from ultra-finely
milled oat bran and the contents were increased from the original 21.3–35.0
to 26.3–42.2% and 31.2–48.4% with mass yields of 53.1–46.2% and 27.3–
23.1% by applying one- and two-step electrostatic separation processes,
respectively. On the contrary, air classification of the same materials allowed
enrichment from 21.3 to 35.0% and, further, from 35.0 to 40.3% with mass
yields of 54.5% and 84.6%, suggesting that from a high β-glucan material
(35.0% β-glucan), more enrichment is achieved by electrostatic separation (up
to 48.4%) than by air classification (up to 40.3%), whereas separation
efficiencies were higher in air classification due to higher mass yields. On the
contrary, in another approach that aimed at histological aleurone enrichment,
several steps of electrostatic separations performed for impact-milled rye and
wheat brans decreased the total DF content but increased the ratio of SDF
and IDF (Nordlund et al. 2012).
Research on successful cereal protein enrichment by electrostatic
separation is lacking in literature. For starch-rich pulses, air classification has
proven more efficient than electrostatic separation, whereas electrostatic
separation is more applicable for oil-rich pulses and oilseeds, such as
rapeseed and sunflower seed press cakes (Laguna et al. 2018; Pelgrom et al.
2015). In regard to sieving, Prakash and Ramanatham (1994) were able to
reach protein content of 18–20% in sieving fractions produced from a defatted
and roller-milled rice bran that initially had 17% protein content, and Jayadeep
35
et al. (2009) produced a protein-enriched fraction (max. 19.3% protein, <5%
mass yield) from a defatted and crushed rice bran (14.5% protein). Sumner et
al. (1985) separated different pearling fractions from barley and reached a
maximum protein content of 27.0% with 17% mass yield from the hulless non-
waxy barley (19.9% protein). Sieving a high-protein, high-beta-glucan barley
variety (23.3% protein) resulted in a fraction <64 µm with 26.6% protein with
44% mass yield, and protein enrichment was further improved by defatting the
relatively high-fat (5.7% fat) barley material, that allowed to reach protein
content of 29.1% with 15% mass yield in particles <43 µm, whereas higher
PSE was obtained by air classification (Wu et al. 1994). Protein enrichment to
21.8% in an aleurone fraction produced from wheat bran (15.2% protein;
Hemery et al. 2009) has been reached using different dry processes based on
descriptions in Bohm et al. (2003) and Bohm and Kratzer (2005), and for rye,
the fractionation of rye aleurone from whole rye flour by sieving resulted in
protein enrichment from 11.4 to 17.6% (Glitsø and Bach Knudsen 1999). For
defatted and pin disc-milled oat bran, the protein content has been increased
from 28.6% to over 32% in multiple sieving fractions with low mass yields (Wu
and Doehlert 2002).
2.2.4 FACTORS AFFECTING THE EFFICACY OF DRY
FRACTIONATION
Challenges in dry processing are associated with the low component purity
and mass yield of the fractions obtained. The behaviour of the raw material in
fractionation can, however, be somewhat altered using different physical pre-
processes or by exploiting the knowledge of the cellular architecture of the raw
materials. In this section, special attention is paid to the impact of the fat
removal, raw material selection, flow aid addition and moisture content on
efficacy of dry fractionation.
High fat content of the raw material may hinder dry processing due to
lowered particle dispersability (Dijkink et al. 2007; Schutyser and van der Goot
2011) or material adhesion to milling or fractionation equipment (Sibakov et al.
2011). For example, as stipulated in the patent of Flynn et al. (2019), the fat
content of the raw material should not exceed 20% in electrostatic separation.
Indeed, Sibakov et al. (2011, 2014) reported improved β-glucan fractionation
from defatted oat groats and oat bran in both air classification- and
electrostatic separation-based studies (Sibakov et al. 2011, 2014). Moreover,
defatting intensified the extent of particle size reduction in pin disc milling
(Sibakov et al. 2011). Likewise, higher β-glucan content has been obtained in
the sieving of a defatted, high-fat barley variety (Wu et al. 1994).
The initial protein content of the starting material does not necessarily
positively correlate with the maximum protein content obtained during air
classification. For example, hard wheat varieties usually exhibit higher protein
content than soft wheat varieties, whereas the protein fractions from soft wheat
varieties reach higher protein separation efficiencies (Wu and Stringfellow
Review of the literature
36
1992). A similar phenomenon has also been observed for various pulse
materials (Tyler et al. 1981), whereas for wheats, the distinctive differences in
the starchy endosperm morphology between soft and hard varieties affect the
component separation in air classification considerably. In hard wheats, milling
fractures the cellular structures first between the cell walls and, during
further/more impactful milling, the starch granules begin to break and damage.
In further fractionation, the broken granules separate together with protein in
size-based dry processes. On the contrary, in the soft wheats, the fracture
occurs in the middle of the cells, affecting and separating protein–starch
interactions in the endosperm more efficiently (Piot et al. 2000). Létang et al.
(2002) verified that the more pronounced separation of protein and starch took
place with soft, rather than hard, wheat flour. Higher milling resistance was
observed for hard wheat, and also, a more compact protein matrix, embedding
the starch granules, was found for the hard wheat when compared with soft
wheat, which showed more distinguishably separated protein and starch
granules (Létang et al. 2002). Furthermore, puroindolines and hordoindolines,
the specific proteins that interact with lipids on starch surfaces in wheat and
barley endosperm, respectively, may affect the behaviour of the flour in dry
processing. In soft grains they bind to starch, whereas in the hard grains they
attach to the protein matrix, which increases interactions between protein and
starch, and may further limit protein fractionation from hard grains (Darlington
et al. 2000).
In dry fractionation the powder flowability is a critical physical property that
influences the behaviour of the raw material during processing and handling
(Dijkink et al. 2007). The size and density of the particles, both of which also
play an essential role in dry fractionation, affect the flow characteristics of
flours. Moreover, the water content of the powder material impacts on the
flowability, and increased relative humidity decreases powder flowability
(Dijkink et al. 2007). Particles with sizes lower than 200 µm, such as the flours
utilised generally as a raw material in air classification, are considered to have
cohesive properties that impair flowability (Rhodes 2008; Teunou et al. 1999).
Flow aid components, such as fumed silica particles, adhering to the surfaces
of larger particles and reducing the interparticle cohesion and van der Waals
forces, have been proposed to improve the flowability of plant materials (Müller
et al. 2008; Pelgrom et al. 2015).
The moisture content of cereal grains affects their physical properties, and
the brittleness of materials is associated with lowered moisture content, which
in turn requires less energy in grinding (Walde et al. 2002). Moreover, the
improved susceptibility to particle size reduction as a result of drying prior to
milling allows the production of higher-mass-yield, protein-rich fractions in the
air classification of pulses, with only minor lowering impact on the protein
content (Pelgrom et al. 2015; Tyler and Panchuk 1982). However, the optimum
particle size for each separation process needs to be carefully considered,
taking into account the impact of particle size reduction on, for example, the
formation of damaged starch, which in turn lowers the enrichment of proteins
37
(Drakos et al. 2017a; Pelgrom et al. 2013; Wu and Stringfellow 1992).
Additionally, the selection of milling style can have a remarkable impact on
component separation during subsequent dry fractionation. For example, a
comparison of grinding under cryogenic and ambient conditions revealed that,
even though grinding under cryogenic conditions allows the easier particle size
reduction of wheat bran, it only results in size reduction, whereas the bran
layers (pericarp, seed coat, aleurone) stay adherent and are thus not able to
be separated in the following fractionation steps (Hemery et al. 2011).
2.3 TECHNO-FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF CEREAL INGREDIENTS
Traditionally, the technological functionality of cereal ingredients has been
assessed from pure components and isolates, whereas several compounds
present in the hybrid ingredients may contribute to the detected functionality.
In the following Sections 2.3.1–2.3.3, the key functionalities associated with
the main cereal components, especially proteins, but also starch and DF, are
reviewed.
2.3.1 PROTEIN COMPOSITION AND SOLUBILITY
Plant proteins are generally classified as albumins, globulins, prolamins and
glutelins, according to their solubilities in water, saline, aqueous ethanol and
acid/base solvents, respectively, using a method originally described by
Osborne (1924). The protein properties and quality differ between different
cereal grains and also between the botanical and structural parts of the grain
within each species. From the point of view of the plant, the proteins in the
cereal grains act as storage, structural or metabolic/enzyme proteins. Bran
proteins are typically considered to have a higher value than the endosperm
proteins in relation to nutrition and technological functionality. Wheat bran (De
Brier et al. 2015), rice bran (Amagliani et al. 2017), barley bran (Yupsanis et
al. 1990) and rye bran (Bushuk 2001) contain higher amounts of water-soluble
albumins and salt-soluble globulins, when compared with endosperm proteins
with the same plant origin (Table 6). The albumins and globulins are generally
richer in essential amino acids compared with prolamins and glutelins, which
are most abundant in starchy endosperm fractions. For example, rice bran
proteins show a higher protein efficiency ratio and contain higher amounts of
certain essential amino acids than the proteins of rice endosperm (Han et al.
2015). Moreover, lysine, the limiting amino acid in cereal grains, exhibits 37%
higher values in rice bran than in the starchy endosperm of rice (Han et al.
2015). Also for wheat, the bran proteins contain three times more lysine than
the starchy endosperm proteins (De Brier et al. 2015; Rombouts et al. 2009).
However, the bran proteins are known to have limited bioavailability due to
their location inside the rigid cell wall structures, but bioprocessing, such as
Review of the literature
38
enzymatic treatments and fermentation, have successfully been proven to
improve the in vitro protein digestibility of bran proteins (Nordlund et al. 2013b).
Table 6. The distribution of cereal bran and starchy endosperm proteins within the Osborne protein
solubility classes.
Bran (% of protein) Starchy endosperm (% of protein)
Alb. Glob. Prol. Glut. Alb. Glob. Prol. Glut.
Wheat 24 (33)a 16 (33)a 11–18a 7–26a 11–16e 11–16e 50–53e 26–27e
Rice 24–42b 13–36b 1–8b 10–42b 4–6f 6–13f 2–7f 79–83f
Barley (41–64)c (41–64)c 8–18c na (16–28)g (16–28)g 30–45g 14–31g
Rye 18d 30d na na (26–30)e (26–30)e 35–49e 8e
Alb.: albumins; Glob.: globulins; Prol.: prolamins; Glut.: glutelins. a De Brier et al. (2015), Idris et al. (2003); b Adebiyi et al. (2009), Hamada (1997), C. Wang et al. (2014), Cagampang et al. (1966), Cao et al. (2009); c calculated based on pearling data in Holopainen et al. (2014) using content of 30% as the amount of glutelins (according to Shewry et al. (1988)) in the whole grain; na: not available; d Rohrlich and Rasmus (1956); e Lexhaller et al. (2019), Schalk et al. (2017); f Cagampang et al. (1966), Cao et al. (2009), Ju et al. (2001); g Celus et al. (2006) (whole grain flour), Lexhaller et al. (2019) (endosperm flour, sum of alb. and glob.: 24%), Linko et al. (1989) (whole grain flour), Schalk et al. (2017) (endosperm flour); all materials values within parentheses represent the sum of albumins and globulins.
Proteins possess a key role in defining the technological properties of a food
ingredient as they affect the structure- and texture-forming abilities but also
have an effect on the behaviour of the ingredient during the processing and
manufacturing of foods, as well as on the final product stability. Protein
solubility in water is often considered a pre-requisite for other techno-
functional protein properties, such as gelling, emulsifying and foaming.
Unfortunately, the solubility of plant proteins is usually much lower than that of
proteins of animal origin. As reviewed by Day (2013) and Zayas (1997), protein
solubility is determined by both intrinsic protein properties, such as amino acid
composition, conformation, molecular weight and surface properties affected
by the amounts of polar and non-polar amino acid groups, and external factors,
such as pH, ionic strength, the solvent and temperature. At the isoelectric
point, the net surface charge of the protein molecule is zero and protein is non‐soluble. At pH values below or above the isoelectric point, the increase in net
positive and negative charges, due to the protonation of carboxyl groups and
deprotonation of amino groups, respectively, render the proteins soluble as a
result of electrostatic repulsion and increased interactions with water (Zayas
1997). The solubility curves of plant proteins plotted as a function of pH are
typically U-shaped even though higher solubilities are often observed at highly
alkaline, rather than highly acidic, pH. For plant proteins, the isoelectric points
are generally close to the food-relevant pH values, such as pH 4–8 for rice
bran (Adebiyi et al. 2007; Chandi and Sogi 2007; Ju et al. 2001), pH 4–5.5 for
wheat bran (Arte et al. 2019; Idris et al. 2003) and pH 5–6 for barley proteins
(Bilgi and Çelik 2004; Wang et al. 2010; Yalçin et al. 2008), which limits direct
plant protein ingredient applicability in the neutral and slightly acidic pH region.
39
2.3.2 TECHNOLOGICAL FUNCTIONALITY OF PROTEINS
Protein solubility usually correlates well with other techno-functional protein
properties, such as gelation, emulsification and foaming, and those
functionalities are also affected by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. In
gelation, the intermolecular covalent or non-covalent interactions
(hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions, and hydrogen bonding) between
the proteins in a colloidal dispersion increase through acidification, heating or
salt addition, which leads to the formation of a network entrapping water
(Foegeding and Davis 2011). During heat-induced gelation with a sufficient
protein concentration, the proteins are first denatured or partially unfolded by
heat, resulting in exposure of the hydrophobic parts of the protein, after which
the molecules associate and aggregate, mainly due to hydrophobic and other
physical and chemical interactions (reviewed by Totosaus et al. 2002). The pH
and ionic strength of the protein dispersion have a considerable impact on the
gel strength and structure. At low ionic strength and pH far from the isoelectric
point, the repulsive forces dominate, which prevents the formation of large
aggregates and allows the formation of a fine-stranded gel network, whereas
particulate gels are formed close to the isoelectric point and at high ionic
strength, as has been shown for pea, canola and quinoa proteins (Mäkinen et
al. 2016; Munialo et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2014). Acid- and salt-induced
gelations are often preceeded by a heating step at a protein concentration that
does not allow heat-induced gelation but rather leads to partial unfolding, the
exposure of hydrophobic residues and the formation of small soluble
aggregates (Hickisch et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2004; Schmitt et al. 2019). After
that, the addition of salts or acidification (by, e.g. fermentation or the addition
of acidulants) result in increased attractive forces between the proteins due to
shielding of the charges or reduced charges, respectively (Schmitt et al. 2019;
Totosaus et al. 2002). The gelation of proteins is usually assessed by
analysing the least gelation concentration (Sun et al. 2017; Yeom et al. 2010)
or by small deformation oscillatory measurements that yield information about
the gel viscoelastic properties via a storage modulus (Gʹ) and a loss modulus
(Gʺ), as well as large deformation measurements that provide insights into the
gel strength (Rao 2014). Moreover, the water retention properties of the gel
may be determined by observing spontaneous syneresis or analysing the
water holding capacity (WHC), which provides information about the water
retention capacity of the gel against a centrifugal force (Ercili-Cura et al. 2013).
Protein-stabilised emulsions and foams are formed due to the adsorption
of surface active proteins onto oil–water or air–water interfaces, respectively.
As reviewed by Damodaran (2005), Foegeding and Davis (2011) and Kinsella
(1976), in emulsification and foaming, the proteins adsorb and orientate
themselves to the interface, exposing the hydrophobic and hydrophilic
moieties to the oil/gas and aqueous phases, respectively. Generally, high
protein solubility aids in emulsification and foaming (Foegeding and Davis
2011). Analysis of emulsion capacity, describing the effectiveness of the
emulsification process, is carried out by defining the maximum oil amount that
Review of the literature
40
can be incorporated in an aqueous ingredient solution or by turbidity-based
analysis of dilute emulsions (McClements 2007; Pearce and Kinsella 1978).
Emulsion stability can be assessed by, for example, analysing particle size or
sedimentation/creaming visually or using light scattering-based optical
profiling (McClements 2007). In foaming, the capacity describes the maximum
foam height obtained after whipping/stirring the aqueous ingredient dispersion,
whereas stability is assessed by evaluating the decrease of foam height or the
drainage (Arte et al. 2019; Nisov et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2010; C. Wang et al.
2014). Regarding the efficiency of emulsification and foaming as a function of
pH, various studies have reported similar U-shaped curves to those that are
commonly observed for the protein solubility of cereal proteins (Bilgi and Çelik
2004; Idris et al. 2003; Wang et al. 2010; Yeom et al. 2010).
The WBC and OBC, assessed by centrifugation-based methods, may be
analysed from pure protein ingredients in order to predict the behaviour of the
protein in foods, but in multicomponent ingredients, other components also
considerably affect these properties. The WBC, which is an important property
in, for example, bakery and meat products, is influenced by the concentration
of proteins and salts, as well as by pH, ionic strength, surface properties, the
presence of polar and non-polar amino acids, particle size and ingredient
processing history, as reviewed by Kinsella (1976). A high WBC is
advantageous when increased viscosity or thickness is desired, whereas it can
be seen as a challenge if it negatively affects the techno-functionality of other
ingredient components by competing for the available water (Katina et al.
2006; Kinsella 1976). A good OBC is a favorable functionality in, for example,
emulsion stabilisation and high-fat food systems, such as processed meats
and meat analogues. It is mainly related to the physical entrapment of the oil
but may also be affected by the polarity of the amino acid side chains in the
proteins (Elleuch et al. 2011; Kinsella 1976).
A substantial amount of literature is available on the functionality of wheat
bran, rice bran and barley proteins, whereas only a little is known about the
technological functionality of rye proteins. Cereal proteins generally exhibit
poor gelling, emulsifying and foaming properties when compared with their
animal-based counterparts. A collection of studies describing cereal protein
functionality is given in Table 7.
41
Table 7. A collection of the results of the techno-functional properties of cereal protein concentrates and isolates.
Raw material Functionalities Environmental conditions Main findings Reference
Rice bran protein
isolate
• Minimum gel
concentration
• Foaming
• Emulsifying
• Heating to 95°C and cooling,
at pH 4 and 7
• pH 5–8, with/without
autoclaving
• pH 5–8, with/without
autoclaving
• No gels formed (protein content up to 15% tested)
• Foaming capacity increased with increasing pH, stability was the
highest at pH 7, autoclaving increased the capacity and lowered stability
• Emulsifying activity and stability increased with increasing pH, the
impact of autoclaving was minor
Yeom et al.
(2010)
Proteins extracted
from brown rice,
white rice and rice
bran
• Foaming and
emulsifying
properties
• pH 3–11, 0.4–2.0% NaCl, 4–
20% sucrose
• All the proteins showed improved properties at pH values far from the
isoelectric point but they did not differ greatly between each other, foam
stability decreased with increasing pH and bran protein formed the most
stable foam and the addition of sucrose and NaCl improved emulsifying
capacity and stability, respectively
Cao et al.
(2009)
Rice bran protein
concentrate
• Heat-induced
gelation
• Heating to 90°C and cooling • No gel formed (solid content up to 15% tested), the Gʹ values were low
and the greatest increase in Gʹ occurred during cooling
Rafe et al.
(2014)
Rice bran protein
fractions based on
solubility classes
(Osborne classes)
• Foaming and
emulsifying
• WBC and OBC
• pH 2–12
• 2 500 r/min, 20 min and
1 000 r/min, 10 min
• Both properties were superior for the albumin and globulin fractions
compared with those of prolamins and glutelins, and deviating pH from IP
improved the properties
• 1.1–5.1 g/g and 1.0–3.6 g/g, respectively with variation due to the two
different extraction methods applied for fractionating the protein classes
C. Wang et
al. (2014)
Rice bran protein
concentrates
derived from
several varieties
• Foaming
• Emulsification
• WBC and OBC
• pH 5, 7, 9, 0.5–1.5% NaCl,
5–15% sucrose
• pH 5, 7, 9, 0.5–1.5% NaCl,
5–15% sucrose
• 750 × g, 15 min
• Impact of salt and sugar addition seemed to be variety dependent,
deviating pH from IP improved the foaming capacity, the addition of salt
improved foaming capacity and stability, sugar addition gave a mixed
response for the foaming capacity but greatly improved stability
• Impacts of pH and salt were variety dependent and sugar improved
capacity and stability
• 3.9–5.6 g/g and 3.7– 9.2 g/g, respectively
Chandi
and Sogi
(2007)
Review of the literature
42
Wheat bran
protein isolate
• Heat-induced
gelation
• Foaming and
emulsifying
• WBC and OBC
• Boiling (1h) and cooling,
water and 1 M NaCl
• pH 1.5–12 and 0–2.0 M NaCl
• 2 200 × g, 30 min
• No gel formed in water, whereas in 1M NaCl, strong gels formed at 8–
14% solid content and very strong gels formed at >16% solid content
• Deviating pH from IP improved emulsifying and foaming capacites,
alkaline pH had more impact, emulsion stability increased at an alkaline
pH, foam stability was the lowest at IP and salt improved emulsifying and
foaming capacities
• 4.2 g/g and 1.6 g/g, respectively
Idris et al.
(2003)
Wheat bran
protein isolate
• Foaming and
emulsification
• 50 mM sodium phosphate
buffer (pH 7.4)
• Poor foaming and emulsification stabilities Arte et al.
(2019)
Barley protein
isolate
• Foaming
properties
• pH 2–11, protein
concentration 0.05–1.0%
• Deviating pH from IP and increasing protein concentration increased
foam volume and half-life
Yalçin et
al. (2008)
Barley protein
fractions (hordein,
glutelin, pearled
grain flour,
pearling flour rich
in albumins and
globulins)
• Foaming
• Emulsification
• WBC and OBC
• pH 3, 5 and 8, protein
content 0.5% w/v
• pH 3, 5 and 8, protein
content 0.5% w/v
• 2 000 × g, 30 min, 23°C
• The lowest foaming capacities and the highest foam stabilities were at
pH 5, the highest foaming capacity and stability were obtained for the
hordein and glutelin fraction, respectively, at all the pH values.
• In emulsification, similar trends were observed compared to foaming
except that there were no major differences in the emulsification
capacities of the fractions
• 2.2 g/g (hordein) to 4.2 g/g (glutelin) and 5.2–5.7 g/g, respectively
Wang et al.
(2010)
Barley protein
concentrate
• Emulsion
capacity and
stability
• pH 2–10 • The lowest capacity and stability were found at pH 6
Bilgi and
Çelik
(2004)
Defatted barley
flour and acid-
precipitated barley
protein isolate
• Foaming
• Emulsification
• pH 7, 10 mg protein/ml
• pH 7, 1 mg protein/ml
• There was no differences in the foaming properties of the two
ingredients
• Emulsification properties were slightly better for the isolate than for the
flour
Mohamed
et al.
(2007)
IP: isoelectric point; OBC: oil binding capacity; WBC: water binding capacity.
43
Understanding the technological functionality of dry-fractionated plant protein
ingredients remains scarce in literature. Sosulski and McCurdy (1987)
compared the techno-functional properties of air-classified protein-enriched
fractions and wet-extracted isolates from faba beans and field peas. Nitrogen
solubility index values and foaming properties were considerably higher for the
dry-fractionated proteins than for the isolates, whereas the isolates exhibited
better oil and water binding properties and no clear differences were observed
in the emulsification properties. Interestingly, the raw material flours showed
the highest nitrogen solubility indexes and the decrease in solubility for the air-
classified samples was postulated to result from heat generation during
grinding or improper dispersability of the fine protein powders (Sosulski and
McCurdy 1987). An air-classified protein concentrate from lupine was reported
to exhibit considerably higher foam stability than an isolate produced by wet
processing including a heating step (Pelgrom et al. 2014). A recent study by
Vogelsang-O’Dwyer et al. (2020) demonstrated that a protein-enriched faba
bean ingredient produced by dry fractionation exhibited higher protein
solubility, foaming capacity and gelling ability compared with a wet-extracted
faba bean protein isolate. Lundgren (2011) and Ranhotra et al. (1992)
evaluated the baking performance of protein-enriched wheat flours and
observed the increased water absorption of the protein flours. This was
postulated to be due to the increased protein and damaged starch contents
resulting in sticky doughs (Lundgren 2011). The breads prepared using the
protein-enriched flours were larger in volume but had a darker crust colour
(Lundgren 2011).
2.3.3 TECHNOLOGICAL FUNCTIONALITY OF STARCH AND DIETARY
FIBRE
DF and starch content affect many of the technological functionalities of cereal
ingredients. Moreover, the interactions between the multiple components in
flours and concentrates may affect the overall ingredient functionalities. The
main component in whole grains is starch, which is usually also present in
large quantities in bran and other cereal side stream fractions. The most
characteristic starch property is its behaviour during heating and cooling.
When solutions of native starch are heated in water, the starch granules swell
and their crystalline structure is lost, which is called gelatinisation (Cornejo-
Ramírez et al. 2018; Tester and Morrison 1990). Partly simultaneously,
pasting takes place, during which the viscosity of the starch-water suspension
increases. After further heating, the leaching of the linear amylose component
of starch and the disruption of starch granules occur, and a rapid drop in
solution viscosity is observed when forces (e.g. mixing forces) are applied.
After cooling down, the amylose and amylopectin molecules realign, viscosity
increases and eventually the starch retrogradates (S. Wang et al. 2015). In
addition to the behaviour of the starch in heating, the structural elements of
starch have an impact on the technological functionality. For example, the ratio
Review of the literature
44
between amylose and amylopectin molecules and the presence of damaged
and resistant starches affect the ingredient properties. The impact of damaged
starch can be seen as highly relevant when considering dry processing as fine
milling is known to induce the formation of damaged starch (Drakos et al.
2017a; Tester 1997). Damaged starch has been shown to bind water more
efficiently than native starch as starch becomes more prone to hydration and
surface area increases when damaged (Berton et al. 2002; Drakos et al.
2017a; Pelgrom et al. 2013). Furthermore, damaged starch is more prone to
hydrolysis by amylolytic enzymes (Barrera et al. 2016).
The main non-starch polysaccharides in cereal grains include
arabinoxylan, β-glucan, cellulose and pectin. In addition, variable amounts of
other polysaccharides, such as heteroxylans, xyloglucan and heteromannans,
may be present, as reviewed in Burton and Fincher (2014). The ratios between
different fibrous components, as well as soluble and insoluble fibres, are
specific to each cereal species. The most remarkable fibre properties affecting
the technological functionality are linked with their solubility and insolubility. As
reviewed by Elleuch et al. (2011), SDF, such as β-glucan, arabinoxylan and
pectin, increases solution viscosity, forms gels and even acts as an emulsifier,
whereas IDF, such as arabinoxylan, cellulose and lignin, swells and binds
water and oil. Thus, the fibrous components may improve the stability of food
products, for example, by retarding syneresis, stabilising dispersions due to
increased viscosity and modifying the structure. In addition to the behaviour of
DF in water, some remarkable properties are observed in modified aqueous
environments. For example, a heated low-methoxyl pectin solution is known
to gel, especially at slightly alkaline conditions, during cooling in the presence
of calcium due to calcium-bridge-mediated pectin network formation (Yang et
al. 2018). A wet-extracted rice bran DF preparation has been shown to have
a higher OBC and emulsifying capacity compared with a commercial fibre
preparation (Abdul-Hamid and Luan 2000). A comparison of differently
produced DF ingredients from defatted rice bran was also performed by Wang
et al. (2016) and the authors reported that the dry-fractionated ingredients
exhibited comparable, or even higher, swelling, WBC and OBC than the wet-
extracted rice bran DF. In regard to sensory attributes, soluble oat bran fibres
are perceived to have a more pleasant mouthfeel than insoluble oat bran fibres
in high-moisture food applications (Chakraborty et al. 2019).
2.3.4 STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF
PLANT INGREDIENTS
Due to the low protein solubility and inferior techno-functional properties of
plant proteins and ingredients when compared with animal-based proteins,
various approaches for cereal protein and ingredient functionalisation have
been investigated. The main functionalisation approaches can be divided into
physical, hydrothermal and biochemical processing methods. Physical
methods include, for example, ultrasound treatment, colloid or dry milling and
45
microfluidisation. High-intensity, low-frequency (16–100 kHz) ultrasound
treatment is based on compression and rarefaction cycles formed in the liquid
media as a result of mechanical acoustic waves. These cycles induce the
enlargening of small gas bubbles in the liquid and, when reaching a critical
size, they collapse (i.e. cavitate), leading to rapid heat and pressure shocks,
mixing, microstreaming currents and turbulence, for example (Kadam et al.
2015; Knorr et al. 2004; Leighton 1998; Soria and Villamiel 2010). Sonication
has been extensively studied in legume protein functionalisation and
improvements, especially in the protein solubility of soy protein (Hu et al. 2015;
Jambrak et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2016; Tang et al. 2009; Yildiz et al. 2017), pea
protein (Jiang et al. 2017), black bean protein (Jiang et al. 2014), millet protein
(Nazari et al. 2018), faba bean protein (Martínez-Velasco et al. 2018) and
canola protein (Flores-Jiménez et al. 2019); the foaming properties of pea
protein (Xiong et al. 2018) and canola protein (Flores-Jiménez et al. 2019);
and the emulsification, gelation and oil absorption properties of canola protein
(Flores-Jiménez et al. 2019), are reported. Moreover, starch modifications,
such as the formation of nano-sized particles (Bel Haaj et al. 2013) and
increased water absoption properties (Sujka and Jamroz 2013), have been
reached via intensive ultrasonication.
Enzymatic treatments with carbohydrate or protein hydrolysing enzymes
have improved protein solubilisation from various cereal matrices due to bran
protein liberation (Arte et al. 2019, 2016; Coda et al. 2014b; Nordlund et al.
2013b) or reduction in the molecular weight of the proteins (Nisov et al. 2020;
Paraman et al. 2007; Xu et al. 2016), respectively. In addition, improvements
in functionality may be obtained via enzymatic hydrolysis, cross-linking or
deamidation (reviewed by Day 2013). Furthermore, lactic acid fermentation
has improved cereal protein functionality and properties (Arte et al. 2019;
Coda et al. 2014a). In addition to enzymatic degradation of the
macromolecules in plants, enzyme-aided modifications via degradation of the
minor compound, phytic acid, has been achieved. Phytase treatments have
mainly targeted the improved nutritional quality of feed materials via the
reduction of protein and mineral binding (as reviewed by Gupta et al. 2013).
Additionally, phytase treatment has improved protein solubilisation from rice
bran during wet protein isolation (Wang et al. 1999) and improved the solubility
of rice pollards (Kies et al. 2006).
In regard to chemical treatments, one alternative for modifying plant protein
functionality is to apply the pH-shifting approach wherein the proteins are
exposed to extreme alkaline or acidic conditions, after which they are
readjusted to neutral conditions. Shifting may induce changes in the tertiary
structure via the partial unfolding and refolding of the protein, which may also
be referred to as a molten globule state (Christensen and Pain 1991; Hirose
1993; Jiang et al. 2018). In literature, pH shifting to high acidic and alkaline
conditions has improved the protein solubility, surface hydrophobicity and
emulsifying properties of soy protein isolate (Jiang et al. 2010, 2009) and
Review of the literature
46
improved the solubility of pea protein isolate (Jiang et al. 2017). However,
studies concerning the pH shifting of cereal proteins are scarce.
47
3 AIMS OF THE STUDY
Cereal grain processing generates annually vast amounts of side streams.
Valorisation of those side streams into food use is regarded a promising
approach from both sustainability and food security points of view.
Traditionally, cereal ingredient production aims at manufacturing pure
component fractions, such as proteins, DF and starch. However, less-refined
multicomponent ingredients can offer feasible solutions by providing
opportunities to exploit both the techno-functional and nutritional properties of
all the components present in the ingredients. Dry fractionation offers a
sustainable and energy-efficient production method for preparing such hybrid
ingredients that are enriched in protein but also contain valuable amounts of
other, nutritionally and techno-functionally important components, such as DF
and starch. Therefore, the main aim of this work was to identify the underlying
principles involved in the dry fractionation of cereal side streams in order to
produce protein-enriched hybrid ingredients, and the factors affecting the
technological functionality and applicability of the hybrid ingredients in relevant
food matrices.
The specific objectives were:
1. To develop dry fractionation technologies combined with suitable pre-
treatments for protein enrichment from cereal side streams deriving
from rice, wheat, rye and barley (I, II, III)
2. To investigate the techno-functional properties of the dry-fractionated,
protein-enriched cereal fractions and to understand the role of starch,
fibre and other components specific to each raw material in terms of
functional properties (I, II, III)
3. To examine modification of the techno-functional properties of the
protein-enriched materials for improved performance in high-moisture
food systems; the treatments investigated for altering the technological
functionality of cereal ingredients included (i) enzymatic hydrolysis of
the components influencing the ingredient performance, in this case,
phytic acid (IV), and (ii) physical processing, in this case, ultrasound
treatment with and without pH shifting for particle size reduction and
structural modification (V)
Materials and methods
48
4 MATERIALS AND METHODS
This section presents a general outline of the materials and methodology
applied in this work. More detailed descriptions can be found in the original
publications (Publications I–V).
4.1 RAW MATERIALS, FLOW AID AND ENZYME
The cereal raw materials utilised in this work and their compositions are listed
in Table 8. In Publication III, a food-grade flow aid Aerosil® 200F, composed
of fumed silica particles (Evonik Industries AG, Essen, Germany), was utilised.
The food-grade microbial phytase from Apergillus niger that was utilised in
Publication IV was purchased from Ultra Bio-Logics Inc. (Quebec, Canada).
The enzyme activity was, according to the manufacturer, 1 500 U/g and
optimum conditions for the enzyme were pH 4.5–6 and 45–55°C. Potential
protease side activity in the enzyme preparation was excluded by the analysis
described by Matsubara and Nishimura (1958).
4.2 PRE-TREATMENTS PRIOR TO DRY FRACTIONATION
In this work, different pre-treatments were applied for all the raw materials prior
to dry fractionation and selection of the pre-treatment was made based on raw
material properties and the targeted impact of the treatment on the
composition or behaviour of the material in further dry processing. The pre-
treatments studied in this work are shown in Figure 5.
Rice bran was defatted as described earlier for rapeseed press cake
(Rommi et al. 2015a) with SC-CO2 extraction using a Nova Swiss extraction
vessel (Nova Werke AG, Effretikon, Switzerland) with a Chematur
Ecoplanning compressor (Chematur Engineering Ltd., Pori, Finland) under
extraction pressure of 29.5–30.5 MPa (I, IV). The temperature was 40 and
48°C in extraction and separation containers, respectively, and five kilograms
of CO2 circulated in the equipment during each extraction. Wheat and rye
brans were dried in an oven for 48 h at 40°C to reach moisture contents of
4.9% (rye bran) and 5.2% (wheat bran) prior to dry milling (II). Prior to the air
classification of the barley endosperm fraction, the raw material was mixed
with 0.5% (w/w) Aerosil® 200F fumed silica particles (III, V).
49
Table 8. The raw materials used in dry fractionation.
Raw
material
Description Supplier Protein
(% dm)
Starch
(% dm)
Insoluble
dietary fibre
(% dm)
Soluble
dietary fibre
(% dm)
Lipids
(% dm)
Ash
(% dm)
Publication
Rice bran Non-heat-treated rice bran of the
Indica variety (Oryza sativa L.
ssp. Indica)
Südzucker
AG, rice
starch
factories, Italy
15.5a 19.7a 25.6a 5.4a 21.8 8.8a I, IV
Wheat bran Wheat bran (V6200), commercial
sample
Fazer, Fazer
Mills, Lahti,
Finland
16.4 15.9 42.4 9.2 na 6.0 II
Rye bran Rye bran (R4500), commercial
sample
Fazer, Fazer
Mills, Lahti,
Finland
14.7 40.1 21.3 11.8 na 4.0 II
Barley
endosperm
fraction
Dry processing of industrial
barley to obtain barley grits
(27%); pin disc milling and
sieving the grits (<150 µm, 40%)
results in the barley endosperm
fraction
Altia
Corporation,
Finland
8.3 80.0 1.6 1.8 1.2 0.7 III, V
a values calculated based on the mass balances of the SC-CO2 fat extraction step. na: not analysed.
Materials and methods
50
Figure 5. The pre-treatment and dry fractionation processes applied in different publications. SC-CO2: supercritical carbon dioxide.
51
4.3 DRY FRACTIONATION
4.3.1 MILLING
Milling procedures for each of the different cereal raw materials were selected
based on their known special features, such as composition and resistance to
particle size reduction, and based on targeted analysis of the milled materials.
In Publication II, the dried wheat bran was first milled using a 0.3 mm sieve
with a 100 UPZ fine impact mill (Hosokawa Alpine AG, Augsburg, Germany)
at a rotor speed of 17 800 rpm due to the initially large particle size of wheat
bran compared with the other raw materials. As a final step prior to air
classification, SC-CO2-extracted rice bran (I, IV), dried and sieve-milled wheat
bran (II) and dried rye bran (II) were milled twice using a 100 UPZ pin disc mill
(Hosokawa Alpine AG, Augsburg, Germany). In addition, when aiming at
understanding the impact of bran particle size reduction and comparing brans
and air-classified fractions (Section 4.3.2) with rather similar particle sizes,
ultra-fine milling was applied. In ultra-fine milling, pre-sieve-milled, non-dried
wheat bran and non-pre-milled, non-dried rye bran were milled using a
Masuko Sanqyo decompression air-flow-type ultra-fine micronizer (Ceren
Miller Dau MKCL8-15J DAU, Masuko Sangyo, Japan) with the rotor speed of
7 600 rpm and trituration time of 1.5 min to obtain ultra-finely milled wheat and
rye bran ingredients (II).
4.3.2 AIR CLASSIFICATION
Air classifications were performed at pilot scale using a 50 ATP classifier
(Hosokawa Alpine, Augsburg, Germany) (I, II, III, IV). Pin disc-milled SC-CO2-
extracted rice bran was air classified using the air classifier wheel speed of
21 000 rpm and the air flow of 50 m3/h (I, IV), whereas pin disc-milled wheat
and rye brans were air classified using the air classifier wheel speed of 15 000
rpm and the air flow of 50 m3/h (II), as depicted in Figure 5. In addition, the
defatted rice bran was air classified without a pre-milling step at 10 000 rpm
and 50 m3/h (I). The resulting non-milled fine fraction from rice bran was
utilised in further analytics, whereas the coarse fraction was further milled (2
x 17 800 rpm using a pin disc mill) and air classified (50 ATP classifier, 21 000
rpm, 50 m3/h) in order to liberate intact proteins from the aleurone cells and to
remove fibrous cell wall structures from the second-step fine fraction (I).
In Publication III, the barley endosperm fraction mixed with 0.5% (w/w)
Aerosil 200F was air classified using various air classifier wheel speeds
(4 000–21 500 rpm) at the air flow rate of 50 m3/h. After optimisation of the air
classification parameters, the two most promising fine fractions that aimed at
the highest protein content and high PSE with considerably increased protein
content when compared with the raw material, were 21 500 rpm and 8 000
Materials and methods
52
rpm, respectively. Those two fractions were further evaluated for their
physical, compositional and microstructural properties. Barley endosperm
fraction mixed with 0.5% (w/w) Aerosil 200F was additionally air classified at
an industrial scale (V). At the industrial scale, a Hosokawa Alpine 200 ATP St.
eng air classifier (Hosokawa Alpine, Augsburg, Germany) was utilised and
operated at the speed of 4 800 rpm using central and tangential air flows of
500 and 450 m3/h, respectively, and an average feed rate/throughput of 189
kg/h (V). The fine fractions from all the air classifications were defined as
protein-enriched fractions (I, II, III, IV, V).
Raw material performance in the air classifications was evaluated by
calculating mass yield and (total) PSE according to Equations 1–3 as follows:
Mass yield (% dm) =dry weight of fraction (g)
dry weight of raw material (g)× 100%, (1)
Protein separation efficiency (PSE % dm) = dry weight of fraction (g) × protein content of fraction (% dm)
dry weight of raw material (g) × protein content of raw material (% dm)× 100%, (2)
Total PSE (% dm) = PSE of previous processing step (% dm)
100×
PSE of the fraction in question (% dm)
100× 100%. (3)
The selection of air classification parameters was done individually for each
raw material based on pre-trials (data not shown) that aimed at fine fraction
mass yields of >5% or preferably >10%.
4.4 FUNCTIONALISATION
Protein-rich ingredients (IV, V) were treated with different methods that aimed
at improving their technological functionalities relevant in high-moisture foods.
4.4.1 PHYTASE TREATMENT
In Publication IV, the protein-enriched rice bran fraction produced by air
classification was treated with a phytase to observe the impact of phytic acid
degradation on protein properties and heat-induced gelation ability of the
ingredient.
The effect on protein solubility was investigated by dispersing the protein-
enriched rice bran fraction to 1% protein concentration using Milli-Q water and
adjusting the pH to 5, followed by the addition of phytase (100 U/g dm) and
incubation for 2 h at pH 5 and 50°C. After incubation, the sample was cooled
to room temperature and adjusted to pH 6.7 (i.e. the native pH of the flour).
The non-heat-treated sample for protein surface hydrophobicity determination
was drawn at this stage. After pH adjustment, the sample was heat treated in
53
a boiling water bath (sample temperature >92°C for 5 min) with manual
shaking for enzyme inactivation. After heat treatment, the sample was divided
into six aliquots and the pH of the aliquots was adjusted (pH 2, 4, 6, 6.7, 8 and
10), the samples were centrifuged (10 000 × g, 10 min, 20°C) and the
supernatant was collected for protein solubility and protein surface
hydrophobicity (a heat-treated sample at pH 6.7) determination (see Section
4.5.2). A control sample was prepared that was similar to the phytase-treated
sample but no enzyme was added to control dispersion.
In gelation trials, the phytase treatment was performed at 14% dry matter
content (3.3 and 3% protein and total DF, respectively, in order to fulfil the
nutritional claim ‘source of fibre’). After overnight hydration at 6°C, the
dispersion containing 0.01% of NaN3 as a preservative was adjusted to pH 5
and treated with phytase (100 U/g dm) for 2 h at pH 5 and 50°C. At the end of
the incubation, the sample was adjusted to pH 5, 6.7 or 8 for the gelation
experiments (see Section 4.5.6). Control samples were prepared in a similar
way to the phytase-treated samples but without added enzyme. The enzyme
was not separately inactivated right after the enzyme treatment since the
samples were directly tested for their heat-induced gelation ability, and the
heating included in this step was presumed to result in enzyme inactivation.
4.4.2 ULTRASOUND TREATMENT
In Publication V, the protein-enriched barley fraction was compared with a
barley protein isolate that was prepared from the protein-enriched barley
fraction according to a protocol adapted from Wang et al. (2010). In brief,
alkaline extraction included the pH adjustment of a 10% (w/w) dispersion to
pH 11 and centrifugation after 30 min (10 000 × g, 15 min, 20°C) in order to
collect the soluble proteins into the supernatant. After adjusting the pH to 5,
followed by 30 min stirring, the precipitated proteins were separated by
centrifugation (10 000 × g, 15 min, 20 °C). The solid residue was freeze-dried
and milled with a laboratory-scale ultra-centrifugal mill, ZM200, equipped with
a 0.5 mm sieve (Retsch, Hann, Germany).
For functionalisation, both the protein-enriched barley fraction and the
barley protein isolate were treated with ultrasound using a procedure adapted
from Jiang et al. (2017) in order to investigate the impact of ultrasound on the
physicochemical properties of the ingredients. The raw materials were
dispersed into Milli-Q water at 1.5% (w/w) and mixed using a magnetic stirrer
for 30 min, followed by pH adjustment to pH 3, 7 or 9 and pH readjustment
after 30 min if necessary. Control samples were under magnetic stirring all
through the treatment duration whereas the ultrasound-treated samples were
homogenised with a VC 750 ultrasonic processor (Sonics & Materials, Inc.,
Newtown, CT, USA) equipped with a 13 mm probe. Ultrasonication was
carried out twice for 2.5 min at 20 kHz and with the amplitude of 100%. In
order to avoid excessive heating, samples were kept in an iced water bath,
both in between the two treatments and during ultrasonication. After
Materials and methods
54
sonication, the dispersions were kept under magnetic stirring for 60 min,
followed by pH adjustment of one aliquot to pH 7 with the other aliquot
remaining at pH 3 or pH 9. The samples were used as fresh, directly after the
treatments.
4.5 ANALYTICAL METHODS
4.5.1 COMPOSITION, MICROSTRUCTURE AND PARTICLE SIZE
The biochemical composition of the raw materials and air-classified fractions
was determined in order to elucidate the impact of processing on the
macronutrients and their fractionation. Total nitrogen content was determined
with the Kjeldahl method, according to the AOAC method 2001.11 (Thiex et
al. 2002), and converted to protein content using nitrogen-to-protein
conversion factors of 5.95 for rice proteins (Juliano and Bechtel 1985) (I, IV)
and 6.25 for wheat, rye and barley proteins (II, III, V). Total starch content was
analysed either according to the AACC 76–13.01 method, using the
Megazyme total starch assay kit (I, II, IV, V) or using Ewers polarimetric
method (ISO 10520:1997 1997) (III). Damaged starch was quantified
according to the AACC 76-31.01 method with the Megazyme starch damage
assay kit (II). In Publications I, III and IV, the content of total DF was
determined using the enzymatic-gravimetric AOAC method 991.43 (AOAC
1995), which differentiates the high molecular weight SDF and IDF. In
Publication II, the enzymatic-gravimetric AOAC method 2011.25 according to
McCleary et al. (2012) was utilised, where the total DF content was obtained
as a sum of high molecular weight insoluble dietary fibre (HMWIDF), high
molecular weight soluble dietary fibre (HMWSDF) and low molecular weight
soluble dietary fibre (LMWSDF). Ash content was determined gravimetrically
after combustion at 550°C (I, II, III, IV). Phytic acid content was determined
using the colorimetric method described by Latta and Eskin (1980) with slight
modifications following Vaintraub and Lapteva (1988) (I, II, IV). Lipid content
was determined gravimetrically after 5 h Soxhlet extraction with heptane (I,
III).
For the microscopy analyses, rice bran (I) and barley endosperm (III)
samples were prepared as described in Holopainen-Mantila et al. (2013). The
samples were stained with Calcofluor White and Acid Fuchsin, according to
Andersson et al. (2011), and examined under a fluorescence microscope to
visualise intact cell wall glucans as blue and proteins as red. Due to
autofluorescence, pericarp structures were observed as brownish yellow
structures (I) whereas starch was unstained and appeared black (I, III).
Additionally, in Publication III the samples were stained with Light Green SF
and diluted Lugol's iodine solution, as also described in Andersson et al.
(2011), in order to visualise proteins as green, the amylose component of
starch as blue and amylopectin as brown.
55
The volume-based particle size distributions of the powdered cereal samples
were determined by laser light diffraction (750 nm) using a Beckman Coulter
LS 230 (Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA) (I, II, III, unpublished data
related to V). The samples were dispersed in ethanol and analysed using the
liquid module and ethanol as a carrier and using refractive indices 1.36
(ethanol) and 1.50 (starch) for the media and sample, respectively. In
Publication V, the particle size distributions of the ultrasound-treated and
control samples were analysed by the Beckman Coulter LS 230, this time
using a liquid module with filtered Milli-Q water as the carrier and refractive
indices of 1.33 and 1.50 for the dispersant and the particles, respectively.
4.5.2 PROTEIN SOLUBILITY, PROTEIN PROFILE AND SURFACE
HYDROPHOBICITY
Protein solubility was determined in order to reveal changes in protein
properties as a result of dry processing (I, II, III), bioprocessing with phytase
(IV) or ultrasound treatment (V). Protein solubility (%) was expressed as the
amount of soluble protein (mg/ml) remaining in the supernatant after
centrifugation (10 000 × g) in relation to the protein content (mg/ml) of the
original aqueous sample dispersion. The protein solubility of the rice, wheat
and rye bran raw materials and air-classified fractions was determined by
dispersing the samples in a 2% (w/w) protein concentration and adjusting to
pH 5, 6.7–6.8 ± 0.2, and 8, followed by mixing and readjustment of the pH if
needed at 30 and 60 min (I, II). In regard to phytase-treated samples, the
protein content of the dispersion was 1% (w/w) and the pH values studied
were pH 2, 4, 6, 6.7, 8 and 10, as described in Section 4.4.1. In this entity,
lower protein concentration was utilised since enzyme inactivation by heating
would have resulted in sample gelation at higher concentrations, thus
hindering protein solubility determination (IV). The protein solubility of the
protein-enriched barley endosperm fraction was determined from water
dispersions at 5% dry matter content, and the dispersions were adjusted to a
pH range of 3–11, followed by mixing and readjustment of the pH if needed at
60 and 120 min (III). Finally, the samples were centrifuged (10 000 × g, 15 min
(I, II, III) or 10 min (IV), 20°C) and the total nitrogen concentration of the
supernatant was determined with the Kjeldahl method and converted to
protein concentration using nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors of 5.95 for
rice proteins (Juliano and Bechtel 1985) (I, IV) and 6.25 for wheat, rye and
barley proteins (II, III). The impact of ultrasound treatment and/or pH shifting
on the protein solubility of the protein-enriched barley endosperm fraction and
barley protein isolate (V) was evaluated by quantifying the protein
concentration of the supernatants separated from the 1.5% (w/w) dispersions
by centrifugation (10 000 × g, 10 min, 20°C). Quantification was performed
using a commercial kit (DC Protein Assay, Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA),
which is based on the Lowry protein assay (Lowry et al. 1951). Bovine serum
albumin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was used as a standard protein.
Materials and methods
56
Protein profiles of the water mixtures of rice, wheat and rye bran and barley
endosperm samples were analysed by sodium dodecyl sulphate
polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) (Laemmli 1970) under both
reducing conditions (I, II, V) and non-reducing conditions (V). Water
dispersions of raw materials or protein-enriched fractions were mixed with the
sample buffer (20% glycerol, 4% SDS, and 0.02% bromophenol blue in a 0.1
M Tris-HCl pH 6.8 buffer, with or without 10% β-mercaptoethanol under
reducing and non-reducing conditions, respectively), followed by heating at
98°C for 5 min, and were loaded with 30 µg protein on a Criterion TGX, Stain-
Free Precast 4–20% Tris-HCl gradient gel (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). The
protein bands were visualised with Criterion Stain Free Imager and examined
using Image Lab software (Bio-Rad).
The protein surface hydrophobicity of the protein-enriched rice bran sample
(IV) was analysed as described in Hayakawa and Nakai (1985) with slight
modifications using 1-anilino-8-naphthalene sulfonate (ANS) as the
hydrophobic probe. The heat-treated and non-heat-treated phytase-treated
and control sample supernatants at pH 6.7 (Section 4.4.1) were diluted to
concentrations between 0.02 and 1.0 mg protein/ml using a 0.05 M phosphate
buffer at pH 6.7 and mixed with 0.8 mM ANS at a ratio of 1:1. Fluorescence
intensity was measured after 5 min incubation in the dark using a Varioskan™
LUX multimode microplate reader (Thermo Scientific) at excitation and
emission wavelengths of 390 and 470 nm, respectively. The slope of the linear
regression of absorbance plotted against protein concentration was defined
as the surface hydrophobicity.
4.5.3 DISPERSION STABILITY, EMULSIFICATION AND FOAMING
The dispersion stability of the bran ingredients (i.e. the stability of the particles
in aqueous dispersions prepared under magnetic mixing) was analysed by
visual observation of the sedimentation of a 4% (w/w) dispersion as a function
of time (I, II). Likewise, the colloidal stability of ultrasonicated (and control)
barley protein ingredients (V) (i.e. the stability of the particles in colloidal
dispersions homogenised by ultrasound treatment) was analysed by visual
observation of the sedimentation of a 1.5% (w/w) dispersion as a function of
time. The emulsification ability of wheat and rye bran protein-enriched and
ultra-finely milled ingredients in Publication II was evaluated at 10% w/w
dispersion with and without 10% rapeseed oil added. Emulsions were
prepared by homogenising the aqueous ingredient dispersion with and without
oil using a VC 750 ultrasonic processor (Sonics & Materials, Inc., Newtown,
CT, USA) equipped with a 13 mm probe. Sonication was carried out for 3 min
at 20 kHz and with an amplitude of 70%, and the samples were immersed in
an iced water bath to prevent samples from overheating. The colloidal stability
of the emulsions was analysed by visual observation of the emulsions as a
function of time. Particle size analysis of the emulsions was carried out in
filtered Milli-Q water with a Mastersizer 3 000 Hydro (Malvern Analytical,
57
Worcestershire, UK) using refractive indices of 1.33 and 1.53 for the
dispersant and the particles, respectively. In Publication III, the foaming
properties of the protein-enriched barley fraction were studied by mixing 25 ml
of 4% (w/w) dispersion for 1 min with a battery-operated whisker (AeroLatte
AL-V1-SS Chef Kitchen Whisk, United Kingdom).
4.5.4 WATER AND OIL BINDING CAPACITIES
WBC of a barley endosperm fraction, as well as differently milled raw materials
and fractions from wheat and rye brans, was defined as the amount of water
(g) retained by the sample (g) by mixing 1 g of the sample with 10 ml of distilled
water, followed by incubation for 30 min (vortexing every 10 min). After
incubation, the supernatant was removed by centrifugation (2 000 × g, 10 min)
(Quinn and Paton 1979) and the pellet was weighed. For the same samples,
OBC, defined as the amount of oil (g) retained per solid (g), according to Lin
et al. (1974), was analysed by dispersing 100 mg of the sample with 1 g of
sunflower oil and incubating for 30 min (vortexing every 10 min). After
incubation, the supernatant was removed by centrifugation (3 000 × g, 10 min)
and the pellet was weighed.
4.5.5 PASTING PROPERTIES
The pasting properties of the barley endosperm, as well as the wheat and rye
bran samples, were analysed with a Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA) (Newport
Scientific Pty Ltd., Warriewood, NSW, Australia) using the standard Newport
Scientific method 1 (II, III).
4.5.6 GELATION AND GEL CHARACTERISATION
In Publication IV, phytase treatment of a protein-enriched rice bran fraction
was carried out as described in Section 4.4.1 and its effect on the heat-induced
gelation of the fraction was studied. The gelation of the samples at pH 5, 6.7
and 8 was carried out in a rheometer (DHR-2 hybrid, TA-Instruments, Crawley,
UK) equipped with a plate–plate geometry using temperature gap
compensation. A solvent trap with rapeseed oil was used to prevent
evaporation. Gel formation was followed during heating the samples within the
geometry from 25 to 95°C at a rate of 2°C/min followed by a hold at 95°C for
5 min, and cooling to 25°C (2°C/min) and a further hold at 25°C for 15 min.
The strain and frequency parameters used during the temperature sweep
were 0.1% and 0.1 Hz, respectively, and were measured to be within the linear
viscoelastic region. The final gel characteristics were analysed by performing
a strain sweep from 0.01 to 100% (0.1 Hz) and determining the yield strain
(%) at 10% decrease in the average Gʹ from its plateau region. A portion of
the same samples that were used for gel formation went through exactly the
Materials and methods
58
same heating and cooling cycle in Eppendorf tubes placed in a manually
controlled heating block in order to analyse the WHC. After heating, cooling
and overnight storage at 6°C, the sampes were centrifuged (3 000 × g, 10 min,
6°C). The WHC (%) was defined based on the share of the difference between
the gel mass and expelled liquid mass in relation to the gel mass, according
to Ercili-Cura et al. (2013). The gel microstructures were examined with a
confocal laser scanning microscope. Calcofluor White (0.1 ppm) and
Rhodamin B (10 ppm) were added to samples before heat-induced gelation to
stain the glucan-containing cell wall structures and the proteins, respectively,
in the gel matrix. After gelation, the stained gels were spooned onto
microscopy slides equipped with an adhesive isolator, forming wells of 9.0 mm
in diameter and 1.0 mm in depth that were further protected with a cover glass
and examined after overnight storage at 6°C.
4.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Statistical analysis of protein content, protein solubility (I), protein solubility,
WBC, OBC (II), mass yields, protein separation efficiencies, protein contents
(III), WHC, surface hydrophobicity (IV) and protein solubility (V) was
performed with SPSS Statistics software (versions 24, 25 and 26, IBM,
Armonk, NY, USA) using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The level of
significance was set at p<0.05 and was assessed by Tukey's post hoc test.
4.7 OVERVIEW OF THE EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
The work consisted of dry fractionation, a functionality assessment and the
functionalisation of cereal side streams, and the main processing steps and
analytics utilised in each publication are visualised in Figure 6.
Figure 6. An overview of the experimental research conducted in this thesis. DF: dietary fibre; WBC:
water binding capacity; OBC: oil binding capacity.
59
5 RESULTS
5.1 DRY FRACTIONATION
5.1.1 COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE OF RAW MATERIALS
BEFORE AND AFTER PRE-PROCESSING (I, II, III)
Rice bran (I, IV), wheat bran (II), rye bran (II) and a barley endosperm fraction
(III, V) were pre-processed by defatting (I, IV), drying (II) or mixing with a flow
aid (III, V), with or without milling prior to dry fractionation that aimed at protein
enrichment (Figure 5). Before protein enrichment, the biochemical
composition of the raw materials (I, II, III) and their microstructure (I, III) were
studied, and the impact of pre-treatments on the raw material properties were
elucidated.
The microstructure of the non-heat-treated and full-fat rice bran raw
material (Figure 7a) revealed the presence of both intact and disintegrated cell
wall structures (I). Protein had partially leaked out from the aleurone cell
structures and only some intact aleurone cells were present. The bran sample
also contained long pericarp stuctures, some of which were attached to
aleurone cell layers. In addition to outer grain layers, some large particles
deriving from starchy endosperm and germ were detected. Since the high oil
content of the native rice bran (21.8%; Table 8) prevented dry milling of the
full-fat bran, SC-CO2 extraction was applied for oil removal. The fat extraction
decreased the oil content of rice bran to 3.2% and resulted in a concurrent
increase in protein content from 15.5 (Table 8) to 18.5% (Table 9, the grey
background). In the SC-CO2-extracted bran, the starch content was 23.5%
and DF content was 37.0%, of which 6.5% was soluble and 30.5% was
insoluble (Table 1 in I). Moreover, the phytic acid content of the rice bran was
8.7%. In addition to modification of the biochemical composition, defatting
allowed considerable particle size reduction during pin disc milling (from 339
to 62 µm) and improved the behaviour of the material during air classification,
which was not possible for the full-fat bran. Wheat bran (II) contained a higher
amount of DF (51.7%; Table 1 in II) and less starch (15.9%) compared with
the defatted rice bran (Table 9, the grey background). On the contrary, rye
bran (II) exhibited a similar DF level (33.1%; Table 1 in II) with rice bran
whereas the starch content was considerably higher (40.1%; Table 9, the grey
background). The phytic acid content of wheat and rye brans (4.7 and 2.1%,
respectively) was lower than that of rice bran.
Results
60
Figure 7. The impact of dry fractionation on the microstructure of rice bran (I) and the barley endosperm fraction (III). In the main images, proteins are shown as red, cell wall
glucans as blue and pericarp structures are yellowish, whereas starch is unstained and appears as black. In the upper corner images of the lower row, protein is stained green and starch violet. In the upper row: rice bran (a) full-fat raw material, (b) the fine fraction from the one-step air classification (21 000 rpm), (c) the fine fraction from the first step of the two-step air classification (10 000 rpm), (d) the coarse fraction from the first step of two-step air classification (10 000 rpm). In the lower row: the barley endosperm fraction (e) raw material, (f) the fine and (g) the coarse fractions produced with the air classifier wheel speed of 8 000 rpm, and (h) the fine fraction produced with the air classifier wheel speed of 21 500 rpm in the presence of 0.5% Aerosil 200F (image courtesy of Dr. Ulla Holopainen‐Mantila, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland).
61
Table 9. The impact of air classification on the component fractionation and particle size of rice bran (I), wheat bran (II), rye bran (II) and barley endosperm fraction (III, V).
Raw
material
Processing prior to final
air classification
Final air
classification
and fraction
Total mass
yield
(% dm)
Total
PSE
(% dm)
Protein
content
(% dm)
SDF:
IDF
ratio
Starch
content
(% dm)
Phytic acid
content
(% dm)
Median particle
size
(µm)
Publication
Rice
bran
1. SC-CO2 extraction - - - 18.5 0.2 23.5 8.7 339/62 (milled)
I
1. SC-CO2 extraction
2. Pin disc milling 2 x 17 800 rpm
21 000 rpm, F
27.2 38.0 25.7 0.5 7.9 21.6 5
1. SC-CO2 extraction 10 000 rpm, F 18.5 19.7 19.7 0.6 12.9 24.5 7
1. SC-CO2 extraction 10 000 rpm, C 77.8 76.7 18.3 0.1 23.4 na 327
1. SC-CO2 extr., 2. AC 10 000 rpm, C
3. Pin disc milling of C, 2 x 17 800 rpm
21 000 rpm, F 13.9 20.2 27.4 0.3 6.8 16.5 6
Wheat
bran
1. Drying 48 h at 40°C
2. 0.3 mm sieve milling 1 x 17 800 rpm
3. Pin disc milling 2 x 17 800 rpm
- - - 16.4 0.2 15.9 4.7 131 (milled)
II
1. Drying 48 h at 40°C
2. 0.3 mm sieve milling 1 x 17 800 rpm
3. Pin disc milling 2 x 17 800 rpm
15 000 rpm, F
9.6 18.0 30.9 0.9 14.2 13.6 9
Rye
bran
1. Drying 48 h at 40°C
2. Pin disc milling 2 x 17 800 rpm
- - - 14.7 0.6 40.1 2.1 89 (milled)
1. Drying 48 h at 40°C
2. Pin disc milling 2 x 17 800 rpm
15 000 rpm, F 12.9 26.9 30.7 1.8 36.3 4.0 7
Barley
endosperm
fraction
1. No treatment - - - 8.3 1.1 80.0 na 18
III 1. Mixing with 0.5% flow aid 8 000 rpm, F 22.1 59.4 22.3 1.2 64.3 na 7
1. Mixing with 0.5% flow aid 21 500 rpm, F 6.4 21.7 28.3 1.0 55.3 na 3
1. Mixing with 0.5% flow aid, industrial 4 800 rpm, F 20.6 52.9 24.0 na 59.7 na 5 V
PSE: protein separation efficiency; SDF:IDF: soluble-to-insoluble dietary fibre ratio; SC-CO2: supercritical carbon dioxide; F: fine fraction; C: coarse fraction; AC: air classification.
Results
62
Both wheat and rye brans were oven-dried (48 h at 40°C) prior to dry milling,
which resulted in the smaller particle size of the dried and milled brans
compared with non-dried brans (data not shown). However, due to the
resistant bran structures, normal impact and sieve milling processes, despite
the applied drying step, were only able to micronise wheat and rye brans to
particle sizes of 131 and 89 µm, respectively (Table 9). In order to reach a
smaller particle size, comparable to that of the dry-fractionated protein-
enriched fractions, ultra-fine milling was utilised and resulted in notably smaller
median particle sizes of 19 and 17 µm for wheat and rye bran, respectively
(II). In addition to changes in particle size, the ratio between SDF and IDF
increased when ultra-fine milling was employed instead of pin disc milling
(Table 1 in II). Likewise, the amount of damaged starch was increased in ultra-
fine milling (3.4 and 5.0% for wheat and rye brans, respectively) compared
with the amounts in the pin disc-milled wheat and rye brans (2.0 and 2.2%,
respectively; Table 1 in II).
The barley endosperm fraction (III) contained a high amount of starch
(80.0%), whereas the protein and DF contents were 8.3% and 3.4%,
respectively (Table 9, the grey background; Table 2 in III). Broken cell wall
structures, together with protein clusters, were visible from the fluorescence
microscopy images besides the unstained regions representing starch (Figure
7e). Thin sections of samples were additionally stained with Light Green SF
and diluted Lugol’s iodine solution to detect the distribution of proteins and
starch in the sample. The analysis of the raw material revealed the presence
of starch granules of varying size embedded in a protein matrix. Prior to air
classification, the material was mixed with Aerosil 200F flow aid due to the
highly adhesive and clumping nature of the initial raw material, which resulted
in material adhesion to the air classification chamber when classified. Due to
the fact that the addition level of Aerosil to the raw material remained at only
0.5%, it was not assumed to have a great impact on the total composition and
was, therefore, not taken into account in the compositional analyses.
5.1.2 COMPONENT FRACTIONATION IN AIR CLASSIFICATION (I, II, III)
The main target in the air classification of the cereal side stream raw materials
was protein enrichment. However, attention was also paid to the fractionation
of other components (in particular starch, DF and phytic acid) that presumably
affect both technological and nutritional properties of the ingredient. Air
classification of all the milled raw materials using air classifier wheel speeds
of 8 000–21 500 rpm yielded fine, protein-enriched fractions with median
particle sizes ranging from 3 to 9 µm, despite the pre-milling steps applied
(Table 9). Moreover, higher air classifier wheel speeds resulted in higher
protein content and lower mass yields of the fine fractions from the same raw
material (Table 9, the barley endosperm fraction). As expected, with bran
materials the median particle size of the milled raw material correlated
negatively with the mass yield of the fine fraction in air classification (i.e. the
63
finer the raw material, the higher the fine fraction mass yield; Table 9). On the
contrary, considerably lower fine fraction mass yield was obtained from the
barley endosperm fraction (III; the raw material with a median particle size of
18 µm resulted in a mass yield of 6.4% when air classified at 21 500 rpm)
when the comparison was made based on the median particle sizes of the raw
materials processed with similar air classification parameters (the median
particle size of the pin disc-milled rice bran raw material (I) was 62 µm and
resulted in mass yield of 27.2% when air classified at 21 000 rpm; Table 9)
despite the application of flow aid in barley fractionation.
Air classification of the defatted rice bran was carried out in one- and two-
step processes (I). In the one-step approach the aim was to increase protein
content directly after pin disc milling. In air classification, a fine fraction with
25.7% protein content was produced with a mass yield of 27.2% from the
defatted rice bran and the protein transferred to that fraction corresponded to
38.0% of the raw material protein (Table 9). In addition to protein enrichment,
which was also proven by microscopy (Figure 7a vs 7b), a clear increase in
the amount of phytic acid to 21.6% took place, the SDF:IDF ratio increased
from 0.2 to 0.5 and starch content decreased to 7.9% (Table 9). In accordance
with the reduced IDF content of the fine fraction, large intact cell wall
components and pericarp structures were absent in the microstructure of the
protein-enriched fraction (Figure 7b). One-step air classification processes
were also applied in the fractionation of wheat and rye brans (II). Somewhat
higher protein contents of 30.9 and 30.7% were achieved in the fine fractions
produced from wheat and rye brans, initially containing 16.4 and 14.7%
protein, respectively, when compared with rice bran (Table 9). However, the
mass yields in wheat and rye bran fractionations remained lower, at 9.6–
12.9%, thus resulting in lower PSE values of 18.0–26.9% compared with rice
bran. Interestingly, starch content was clearly less affected in the fractionation
of wheat and rye brans compared with rice bran. Phytic acid enrichment to the
protein-rich fraction was evident for all brans, and increases in the SDF:IDF
ratios were noticed to also take place during the fractionation of wheat and rye
brans (Table 9).
In the two-step fractionation process of defatted rice bran (I), instead of
direct protein enrichment, the first fractionation step targeted the separation of
the bran preparation into one fraction free of pericarp structures and another
composing of the pericarp and intact aleurone cells enclosing proteins. Indeed,
the coarse fraction from the first step contained intact aleurone structures on
the basis of microscopy analysis (Figure 7d), which guided the further
processing of the fraction by pin disc milling for cell wall disruption. The fine
fraction from the first step was free from pericarp structures and composed of
broken aleurone cell walls and loose and free protein (Figure 7c). The protein
content was not largely affected in the first air classification step (19.7% in the
fine fraction vs 18.5% in the raw material), whereas starch content decreased
from 23.5 to 12.9% (Table 9). Both the phytic acid content and SDF:IDF ratio
increased to higher levels compared with the raw material and the fine fraction
Results
64
from the one-step air classification. Pin disc milling and further air classification
of the coarse fraction from the first fractionation step of the two-step air
classification process resulted in protein enrichment up to 27.4% with a total
mass yield of 13.9% and total PSE of 20.2% from the raw material. Thus, the
highest protein content for rice bran was reached in the two-step air
classification process.
Pre-mixing the barley endosperm raw material with a flow aid increased the
mass yield of the fine fraction from 5.3 to 6.3%, protein content from 26.3 to
28.3% and PSE from 16.9 to 21.6% during air classification with the highest
applied air classifier wheel speed (Table 1 in III). The barley endosperm raw
material differed from the bran raw materials as it contained much more starch,
less protein and the DF content was notably low. Nevertheless, protein
enrichment to similar levels (22.3–28.3%) as for the brans was achieved,
allowing concomitantly high PSE values (59.4–21.7%; Table 9). Higher protein
content and lower PSE accounted for the fraction produced with the highest
air classifier wheel speed, as anticipated. Reduction in starch content to 64.3–
55.3% correlated positively with increased protein content. No major changes
between the ratios of the DF components were observed during the air
classification of the barley sample. A comparison of the microstructures of the
barley raw material and protein-enriched fractions revealed the size-based
fractionation of starch granules and fibrous cell wall structures (Figure 7e–h)
and that the fine fractions contained more small starch granules embedded in
a continuous protein matrix (Figure 7f and 7h). The fractionation process that
aimed at high PSE from the barley endosperm fraction was scaled up and the
protein-enriched fraction obtained in the industrial-scale process (24.0%
protein, 20.6% mass yield, 52.9% PSE) was well comparable to the pilot-scale
fraction (22.3% protein, 22.1% mass yield, 59.4% PSE).
The partitioning of different protein classes between the air-classified
fractions and raw materials was detected on a reducing SDS-PAGE gel when
protein band intensities were compared (Figure 8). Evaluation of the protein
profiles of the rice bran ingredients revealed the enrichment of the proteins
with molecular weights around 18–20, 30–35 and 55 kDa to all of the three
fine fractions, whereas the fine fractions contained fewer of the proteins with
molecular weights around 10, 16, 22–25, 50 and 53 kDa when compared with
the raw material bran. In wheat bran, the proteins at 10, 17–18, just below 25,
32 and 50 kDa were enriched in the fine wheat bran fraction and the amounts
of the proteins at around 14, 20 and 25 kDa were reduced in that fraction. For
rye bran, the proteins with molecular weights of 12–14, 30, 40, 50, 55 and 100
kDa showed enrichment in the fine fraction. For both wheat and rye brans,
aggregates sizing >250 kDa were detected in the raw material brans but were
absent in the fine fractions.
65
Figure 8. SDS-PAGE of rice bran (RiB) (I), wheat bran (WhB) (II) and rye bran (RyB) (II) raw materials
and the protein-enriched fractions (PEFs) produced by air classification when analysed under reducing conditions.
5.2 TECHNO-FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF THE DRY-FRACTIONATED INGREDIENTS
The techno-functional properties (i.e. protein solubility, dispersion stability,
pasting properties, foaming properties, emulsification, WBC and OBC) of the
pre-processed raw materials and air-classified fractions were analysed in
order to predict the impact of dry fractionation on the food applicability of cereal
side stream ingredients (Table 10).
5.2.1 PROTEIN SOLUBILITY (I, II, III)
The protein solubility of the pre-processed rice bran (I), wheat bran (II) and rye
bran (II) at native pH (6.7–6.8) in water was 48.5, 43.9 and 42.2%,
respectively, and for all the brans, the solubility increased significantly at pH 8
and decreased significantly at pH 5 (Table 10). The ultra-fine milling of wheat
and rye brans (II) decreased the solubilities at all the studied pH values (Table
10). All the three air-classified fine fractions produced from the defatted pin
disc-milled rice bran exhibited higher solubilites than the raw material at the
same pH values. On the contrary, the fine fraction produced from the rye bran
showed lower solubility than the raw material. In the case of wheat bran, the
protein-enriched fraction was more soluble at native pH and pH 8, whereas it
showed lower solubility at pH 5 compared with the raw material bran. The
protein solubility of the barley endosperm raw material fraction was not
analysed in the current study, but for the protein-enriched barley endosperm
Results
66
fraction (III), a similar trend as for the bran samples regarding the impact of
pH on the solubility was observed, that is, the solubility increased from 9.0 to
22.2% when pH was increased from 5 to 8 (Table 10). However, also at more
acidic (pH 3) and alkaline (pH 9) conditions, lower solubilities of 19.6 and
28.9%, respectively, were observed for the protein-enriched barley fraction
(Figure 5 in III) when compared with the protein-enriched bran fractions. When
the barley protein isolate was investigated, higher solubilities of 51.4 and
64.3% were observed at acidic pH 3 and alkaline pH 9, respectively, whereas
the solubility at pH 5 was even lower (2.9%) than that of the protein-enriched
fraction (Figure 3 in V).
5.2.2 OTHER TECHNO-FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES (I, II, III)
In all the studied cereal side stream samples deriving from wheat (II), rye (II)
and barley (III), the protein-enriched fractions showed lower WBCs and OBCs
compared with the milled raw materials. The WBC and OBC values of different
protein-enriched fractions were 1.2 and 1.0–1.1%, respectively (Table 10). For
wheat, the pin disc-milled bran showed the highest WBC (2.7 g/g) and OBC
(1.3 g/g) among the wheat bran samples. For rye, the pin disc-milled bran
delivered the highest OBC (1.4 g/g) whereas ultra-fine milling improved the
WBC from 1.5 to 1.9 g/g.
The aqueous dispersions of the protein-enriched fractions derived from
both rice and wheat brans exhibited good dispersion stabilities, devoid of
sedimentation at their native pH during a 30 min observation time (Table 10;
Figure 4 in I; Figure 4 in II). On the contrary, the dispersion of the protein-
enriched fraction from rye bran already started to sediment at 10 min and was
clearly phase separated by 30 min (Figure 4 in II). However, the dispersion
stabilities of all the protein-enriched fractions and the ultra-finely milled wheat
and rye brans were clearly improved compared with the pin disc-milled raw
materials. Ultra-finely milled wheat and rye brans sedimented faster than the
corresponding protein-enriched fractions (Figure 4 in II).
The pasting properties of wheat (II), rye (II) and barley (III) raw materials
and protein-enriched fractions were evaluated using the RVA in order to
observe the behaviour of the ingredients during heating and subsequent
cooling. The peak and final viscosity values correlated well with the starch
content as the lowest viscosities were observed for the wheat bran ingredients
and the highest for the barley endosperm samples, the highest value
corresponding to the barley endosperm raw material that contained 80.0%
starch (Table 10). For wheat bran samples, the lowest peak and final
viscosities were achieved by the protein-enriched fraction, whereas for rye
bran ingredients, only the peak viscosity was the lowest for the protein-
enriched fraction. For wheat bran, the ultra-fine milling did not induce major
differences in viscosities compared with the pin disc-milled raw material,
whereas for rye bran, the ultra-fine milling almost doubled both the peak and
final viscosity values.
67
Table 10. The impact of dry fractionation on the techno-functional properties, including protein solubility, and water and oil binding capacities, as well as dispersion stability
and pasting properties, of cereal side stream ingredients (I, II, III).
Raw material
Fraction Protein solubility (%) WBC (g/g)
OBC (g/g)
Other techno-functional properties (dispersion stability, emulsification, foaming, and pasting properties)
Publi-cation
pH 5 pH
6.7–6.8 pH 8
Rice bran, SC-CO2 extracted
Pin disc-milled 2 x 17 800 rpm 30.0 ± 0.4 48.5 ± 0.2 66.6 ± 0.7 na na Poor dispersion stability
I Fine from 1-step AC 38.1 ± 0.2 66.9 ± 0.2 82.9 ± 0.6 na na Stable dispersion at 30 min
Fine from 1st step of 2-step AC 46.2 ± 0.5 74.9 ± 2.2 82.6 ± 0.4 na na Stable dispersion at 30 min
Fine from 2nd step of 2-step AC 35.7 ± 0.3 58.3 ± 0.6 81.7 ± 0.5 na na Stable dispersion at 30 min
Wheat bran
Dried, 0.3 mm sieve- and pin disc-milled 2 x 17 800 rpm
38.5 ± 0.6 43.9 ± 0.3 65.6 ± 0.5 2.7 ± 0.04 1.3 ± 0.01 Poor dispersion stability; PV: 158 cP; FV: 222 cP
II
Ultra-finely milled 34.3 ± 0.7 38.2 ± 0.4 53.8 ± 0.8 2.2 ± 0.03 1.1 ± 0.02
Limited dispersion stability at 10 min; no change in emulsion PSD in 1 d but minor clarification on the top; PV: 146 cP; FV: 280 cP
Fine fraction from 1-step AC 30.1 ± 1.0 45.1 ± 0.5 75.5 ± 0.5 1.2 ± 0.04 1.0 ± 0.01 Stable dispersion at 30 min; no change in emulsion PSD in 1 d but minor clarifica-tion on the top; PV: 92 cP; FV: 167 cP
Rye bran
Dried and pin disc-milled 2 x 17 800 rpm
38.4 ± 1.2 42.2 ± 0.5 50.5 ± 0.2 1.5 ± 0.01 1.4 ± 0.00 Poor dispersion stability; PV: 496 cP; FV: 580 cP
Ultra-finely milled 36.6 ± 0.4 40.2 ± 1.0 47.2 ± 1.0 1.9 ± 0.01 1.1 ± 0.01
Limited dispersion stability at 10 min; no change in emulsion PSD in 1 d but minor clarification on the top; PV: 789 cP; FV: 1032 cP
Fine fraction from 1-step AC 31.9 ± 1.2 34.9 ± 0.6 43.6 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.07 1.0 ± 0.02
Limited dispersion stability at 10 min; no change in emulsion PSD in 1 d but minor clarification on the top; PV: 427 cP; FV: 598 cP
Barley endo-sperm fraction
Raw material na na na na na PV: 5870 cP; FV: 6118 cP
III Fine fraction from 1-step AC at 8 000 rpm
9.0 ± 0.1 16.6 ± 0.2 22.2 ± 0.2 1.2 ± 0.01 1.1 ± 0.02 Limited foaming capacity and stability ob-served at all the studied pH-values (3, 5.1, 7, 8); PV: 3113 cP; FV: 3634 cP
WBC: water binding capacity; OBC, oil binding capacity; AC: air classification; na: not analysed; PV: peak viscosity in a Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA); FV: final viscosity in the RVA; PSD: particle size distribution.
Results
68
The emulsification ability of wheat and rye bran ingredients was studied by
homogenising the aqueous sample dispersions with oil using an ultrasound-
assisted method (II). Both the protein-enriched fractions and the ultra-finely
milled bran raw materials resulted in stable emulsions that showed only minor
phase separation during one-day storage and the emulsions did not coarsen
remarkably based on particle size analysis during the observation period
(Table 10; Figures 5–6 in II). The foaming capacity and stability of the protein-
enriched barley fraction (III) were assessed and, at the studied pH values of
3, 5.1, 7 and 8, showed low values of 48–90% and 0–48%, respectively (Table
3 in III). The instability of the foams was also detected as high drainage (87–
92%) of the liquid fraction from the foam already 10 min after foaming.
5.3 FUNCTIONALISATION OF THE AIR-CLASSIFIED INGREDIENTS
5.3.1 PHYTASE TREATMENT (IV)
The potential impact of phytic acid degradation using phytase on the techno-
functional properties of the protein-enriched rice bran fraction was elucidated
in Publication IV. Phytase treatment lowered the phytic acid content of the
protein-enriched rice bran fraction to 1–3%, depending on the solid content of
the treatment. The phytase-treated sample exhibited higher protein solubility
in water at acidic pH than the control sample (Table 11). The most pronounced
impact was seen at pH 2 where the solubility of the control sample was 42%,
whereas it reached 55% for the phytase-treated sample. No major differences
in the solubilities were observed at neutral and alkaline pH. On the other hand,
surface hydrophobicity at pH 6.7 was increased from 36 to 87 as a result of
the phytase treatment (Table 11). The heat treatment of the control and the
phytase-treated dispersions led to a dramatic decrease in surface
hydrophobicity to values of 27 and 20, respectively.
The applicability of the protein-enriched rice bran fraction with and without
a pre-phytase treatment in a heat-induced gel system was investigated at pH-
values 5, 6.7 and 8. At the end of the heating and cooling cycles applied in a
rheometer, the final Gʹ values of the control and phytase-treated gels prepared
at pH 5 were 90 and 86 Pa, respectively, whereas the gels prepared at pH 6.7
exhibited values of 1057 and 1065 Pa, respectively (Table 11). Likewise, the
final loss tangent (tan δ) (0.19), yield strain (0.33 and 0.25) and WHC (35.9%
and 38.0%) of the gels did not considerably differ between the control and the
phytase-treated samples at pH 5. At pH 6.7, tan δ decreased to 0.18 and 0.15
and WHC increased to 53.5 and 62.2% for the control and the phytase-treated
samples, respectively. The yield strain of the control sample at pH 6.7
remained at 0.33%, similarly to that observed for the control sample at pH 5,
whereas the phytase-treated sample at pH 6.7 showed the higher value of
0.65. However, the results show that no major differences were detected as a
69
result of phytase treatment under these pH conditions, and stronger gels were
formed at neutral pH than at slightly acidic pH. At slightly alkaline pH 8, on the
other hand, considerable differences were observed between the phytase-
treated and control samples. The control sample did not differ greatly from the
properties of the samples gelled by heating at pH 6.7, whereas the phytase-
treated sample exhibited a tenfold higher Gʹ compared with the control.
Moreover, the phytase-treated sample at pH 8 showed the highest WHC and
the lowest final tan δ among all the samples. On the contrary, this sample also
exhibited a low yield strain of 0.26%. Differences in the microstructures of the
gels (Figure 5 in IV) were minor and only a slightly more uniform and
homogenous distribution of proteins and cell wall glucans was observed in the
phytase-treated gel at pH 8 compared to the other gels.
Table 11. The impact of phytase treatment on the protein solubility, surface hydrophobicity and heat-
induced gelation of the protein-enriched rice bran fraction (IV).
pH Sample Protein
solubility
(%)a
Surface
hydro-
phobicity
(before / after
heating)a
Gel properties
Final Gʹ
(Pa)b
Final Tan
δb
Yield strain
(%)b
WHC
(%)a
2 Control 42 ± 2 na na na na na
Phytase 55 ± 0 na na na na na
4 Control 41 ± 1 na na na na na
Phytase 47 ± 0 na na na na na
5 Control na na 90 ± 6 0.19 ± 0.00 0.33 ± 0.07 35.9 ± 2.6
Phytase na na 86 ± 3 0.19 ± 0.01 0.25 ± 0.00 38.0 ± 1.8
6 Control 46 ± 0 na na na na na
Phytase 45 ± 0 na na na na na
6.7
Control 46 ± 0 40 ± 6 /
27 ± 1
1057 ± 83 0.18 ± 0.00 0.33 ± 0.07 53.5 ± 1.9
Phytase 45 ± 1 87 ± 10 /
21 ± 2
1065 ± 47 0.15 ± 0.00 0.65 ± 0.00 62.2 ± 4.3
8 Control 49 ± 0 na 1141 ± 16 0.13 ± 0.01 0.26 ± 0.01 54.6 ± 0.6
Phytase 46 ± 0 na 11336 ± 564 0.10 ± 0.00 0.26 ± 0.00 77.8 ± 0.3
10 Control 52 ± 0 na na na na na
Phytase 50 ± 1 na na na na na a ± standard deviation; b ± average deviation; WHC: water holding capacity; na: not analysed
5.3.2 ULTRASOUND TREATMENT (V)
Production of the protein-enriched barley fraction with high PSE was repeated
at an industrial scale and the impact of ultrasound treatment and pH shifting
on physicochemical ingredient properties was investigated (V). In addition, a
protein isolate was prepared from the protein-enriched fraction using alkaline
extraction and isoelectric precipitation. The differences between the two barley
Results
70
protein ingredients (i.e. the protein-enriched fraction from the air classification,
24.0% protein, 55.6% starch; Table 9; Table 1 in V, and the protein isolate
85.9% protein, 0.6% starch; Table 1 in V), affected by ultrasound treatment
and pH shifting, alone or in combination, were studied. The protein-enriched
barley fraction and barley protein isolate exhibited solubilities of 14.7 and 2.9%
at their native pH conditions of 5.9 and 5.0, respectively (data not shown). At
pH 3, higher solubilities of 18.8% and 51.4% were detected for the protein
fraction and isolate respectively, at pH 7 the corresponding percentages were
22.4% and 16.1%, and at pH 9 they were 37.3% and 64.3% (see the control
samples in Table 12). Adjusting the pH to 9 improved the colloidal stability of
both the protein-enriched fraction and the isolate, although the effect was more
pronounced for the latter (Figure 5 in V). For both materials, colloidal stabilities
were rather poor and similar at pH 3 and 7.
Table 12. The impact of ultrasound treatment and pH shifting on the protein solubility, particle size and
colloidal stability of the protein-enriched barley fraction and barley protein isolate (V, particle size median values are unpublished data).
Sample Treat-
ment pH
Sample Analysis
pH
Protein
solubility
(%)a
Median
particle
size (µm)b
Colloidal stability at
3 h when compared
to the same control
sample at pH 7
Protein-
en-
riched
barley
fraction
3
Control 3 18.8 ± 1.1 23.3 ± 3.6 No changes
7 15.3 ± 1.7 25.7 ± 3.9 No changes
Ultrasound 3 18.0 ± 0.8 4.5 ± 0.1 Slightly improved
7 15.7 ± 1.7 5.5 ± 0.3 Slightly improved
7 Control 7 22.4 ± 1.2 27.5 ± 2.5 -
Ultrasound 7 24.2 ± 1.1 4.9 ± 0.2 Clearly improved
9
Control 9 37.3 ± 1.1 18.6 ± 1.7 Slightly improved
7 26.1 ± 1.8 19.9 ± 0.9 Slightly improved
Ultrasound 9 60.3 ± 3.1 4.3 ± 0.1 Clearly improved
7 40.7 ± 2.8 4.2 ± 0.1 Clearly improved
Barley
protein
isolate
3
Control 3 51.4 ± 5.1 na No changes
7 11.2 ± 2.3 na No changes
Ultrasound 3 69.7 ± 10.1 na Clearly improved
7 11.2 ± 4.3 na Clarification on top
7 Control 7 16.1 ± 1.0 51.7 ± 5.2 -
Ultrasound 7 25.6 ± 1.0 1.4 ± 0.1 Clearly improved
9
Control 9 64.3 ± 5.5 na Clearly improved
7 38.3 ± 1.5 na Clearly improved
Ultrasound 9 74.3 ± 4.3 na Clearly improved
7 46.0 ± 6.7 na Clearly improved a ± standard deviation; b ± average deviation; na: not analysed
Shifting the pH first to pH 3 and then back to neutral pH 7 did not improve the
protein solubility or colloidal stability of either of the fractions compared to their
solubilities or stabilities measured directly at pH 7 (Table 12). On the contrary,
71
shifting to pH 9 and back to pH 7 induced slight improvements in solubility and
colloidal stability of the protein-enriched fraction. Interestingly, the similar
shifting applied for the isolate improved both solubility (showing an increase
from 16.1 to 38.3%) and colloidal stability considerably, when compared with
the sample only adjusted to pH 7.
The effect of ultrasound treatment was assessed by comparing the
properties of the samples at different pH values with and without
ultrasonication. In regard to the protein-enriched fraction, a clear impact of
ultrasound treatment was only noticed at pH 9, where sonication increased the
solubility from 37.3 to 60.3% (Table 12). Nevertheless, the colloidal stability
was clearly improved at both pH 7 and pH 9 (Figure 5 in V). For the isolate,
ultrasound treatment improved protein solubility at all the studied pH
conditions, as well as colloidal stability at pH 3 and 7, whereas at pH 9, the
sample was stable both with and without the sonication (Table 12). For both
samples ultrasonication decreased the particle size considerably. For the
protein-enriched fraction, the median particle sizes were reduced from 18.6–
27.5 to 4.2–5.5 µm in ultrasound treatment. For the isolate, a more intensive
reduction from 51.7 to 1.4 µm at pH 7 was observed during sonication.
Differences between the protein profiles of the protein-enriched fraction and
the isolate were minor based on SDS-PAGE analysis. The ultrasound
treatment did not modify the clearly observed bands in the gels, although more
smearing was noticed in the lanes of the sonicated samples (Figure 2 in V).
Ultrasound treatment at pH 3 or pH 9, followed by pH shifting to neutral pH
7, improved both colloidal stability and protein solubility in selected samples.
The protein-enriched fraction had the most notable change resulting from
ultrasonication at pH 9 and pH shifting to 7, where the colloidal stability was
clearly improved (Figure 5 in V) and solubility reached 40.7% (Table 12).
Protein solubility remained at 26.1% after pH shifting to 9 and back to 7
(without ultrasonication) and at 24.2%, after ultrasonication directly at pH 7
(Table 12). Solubility was the highest for the ultrasonicated sample at pH 9
(60.3%). Likewise, shifting the pH of the ultrasonicated protein isolate from pH
9 to 7 resulted in higher protein solubility (46.0%) compared with the sample
ultrasonicated at pH 7 (25.6%). The impact on protein solubility was only
slightly improved when compared to the control sample, shifted to pH 9 and
back to pH 7 (38.3%) without the ultrasonication step. On the contrary, pH
shifting to acidic conditions prior to ultrasound treatment and adjustment to
neutral had no significant impact on the protein solubility of either of the barley
protein ingredients.
Discussion
72
6 DISCUSSION
The work elucidated dry fractionation of cereal side streams including rice bran
(I), wheat bran (II), rye bran (II) and a barley endosperm fraction (III), aiming
at enrichment of proteins and other nutritionally and functionally relevant
components, such as DF. Before the dry fractionations the raw materials were
pre-treated with the different approaches selected based on the initial raw
material properties. Considerable differences between the raw materials in
terms of their behaviour in fractionation were observed. Moreover, techno-
functional properties differed both between fractions and raw materials.
Functionalisation approaches targeted at improving ingredient applicability in
high-moisture food systems, namely phytase treatment for the protein-
enriched rice bran fraction (IV) and ultrasound treatment with or without pH
shifting for barley protein ingredients (V), were effective. In this section, the
factors affecting the observed phenomena are discussed.
6.1 EVALUATION OF DIFFERENCES IN DRY FRACTIONATION OF CEREAL SIDE STREAMS
6.1.1 THE EFFECT OF PRE-TREATMENTS ON INGREDIENT
PROPERTIES AND DRY FRACTIONATION EFFICIENCY
Analysis of the biochemical composition of the cereal raw materials prior to
dry processing guided selection of the most potential pre-prosessing
techniques that were hypothesised to aid in dry fractionation. The applied pre-
treatments included defatting with SC-CO2 for rice bran (I), drying for wheat
and rye brans (II) and mixing with a flow aid (III) for the barley endosperm
fraction (Table 13).
The high fat content of rice bran is known to induce rancidity unless
removed or stabilised and in this work it was also expected to disable dry
milling of the bran, and therefore, fat extraction was included as a pre-
processing step for rice bran. Indeed, pin disc milling of a full-fat bran in the
pre-experiments of the current study was proven inapplicable whereas
efficient particle size reduction and further component fractionation was
achieved in pin disc milling and air classification of the defatted bran,
respectively. In compliance with these findings, Sibakov et al. (2011), Xing et
al. (2018) and Flynn et al. (2019) have reported that the high fat content of the
raw materials affect the dry processes negatively. Traditionally, fat extraction
has been carried out using solvents, such as hexane. However, solvents are
regarded hazardous and traces of them are considered inappropriate and
unsafe in human foods. On the contrary, SC-CO2 is a more gentle fat-removal
agent used for rice bran oil extraction that applies relatively low extraction
73
temperatures (40–90°C) and high pressures (200–500 bar), transforming the
carbon dioxide into a supercritical state that diffuses into the raw material
matrix and removes the extractables while diffusing out from the matrix as a
result of lowering the temperature or pressure (Kuk and Dowd 1998; McHugh
and Krukonis 2013). Furthermore, carbon dioxide is non-toxic and non-
flammable, and the exploitation of only low temperatures in extraction makes
it suitable for heat-sensitive materials (Patel 2005). In this work, the selection
of the defatting method was done based on the gentle nature of SC-CO2
extraction, which retains the native functional properties of the rice bran
proteins. This was proven by the high protein solubility of the defatted bran
(30–67% between pH 5 and 8) and by the microstructures of the defatted bran
samples, which were devoid of any protein aggregates and revealed unstained
areas inside the aleurone cells, suggesting the removal of oil bodies from
inside the aleurone cells in defatting. On the contrary, most of the previous
studies on the dry fractionation of rice bran for protein enrichment have
included solvent-extraction or parboiling steps which may have led to protein
denaturation or component complexation due to heating or drying, and thus
makes direct comparison to the prior literature challenging (Jayadeep et al.
2009; Saio and Noguchi 1983; Tang et al. 2002).
One potential factor that limits bran protein enrichment via dry processing
is associated with the rigid structures of bran, more specifically, the aleurone
cell walls enclosing the proteins (Arte et al. 2016; Hemery et al. 2011; Nordlund
et al. 2013b; Rosa-Sibakov et al. 2015a). The microstructural observations in
the present work revealed that in the defatted rice bran, the aleurone layer
cells were partly broken and some intracellular material seemed to have
leaked out from the cells of the raw material, most probably due to the rice
bran production process relying on pearling and polishing, which may already
result in structural disintegration of the bran layers. Thus, efficient particle size
reduction was obtained for rice bran by only pin disc milling. On the contrary,
the well-known hardness of the aleurone cell structures of wheat and rye bran
(Hemery et al. 2011; Rosa-Sibakov et al. 2015b) directed studying treatments
that targeted improved cell wall degradation prior to the dry fractionation of
these brans and aimed at protein liberation and further protein enrichment
from inside the aleurone cells. In the present work, drying the materials prior
to milling was applied in order to increase their brittleness, something which
has been reported to take place in drying (Laskowski and Lysiak 1999; Tyler
and Panchuk 1982), and aid in particle size reduction, which would potentially
improve the release of the proteinaceous structures from inside the cell walls.
In line with the previous studies, particle size was reduced more efficiently
whereas protein content in the air-classified protein-enriched fractions was not
largely affected by the pre-drying, resulting in slight increases in the PSEs.
Discussion
74
Table 13. The impact of pre-treatments on improving the behaviour of the cereal raw materials in dry
fractionation.
Raw
material
Pre-
treatment
Justification for the need
for pre-treatment
Proposed impact of pre-
treatment
Publica-
tion
Rice
bran
Defatting
with SC-
CO2
Milling of high-fat materials
is known to be challenging
and component separation
is improved in defatted
cereal materials (Flynn et
al. 2019; Sibakov et al.
2011; Xing et al. 2018).
Defatting enabled milling, which
was not possible to be performed
for the full-fat bran. Based on
microscopy, no protein aggregation
took place during SC-CO2
extraction and thus protein
enrichment was possible.
I
Wheat
bran
and rye
bran
Drying for
48 h at
40°C
Bran materials, especially
wheat bran, are known to
be relatively resistant to
particle size reduction by
dry processing. The cell
walls physically limit
protein separation from
protein-rich aleurone cells
(Hemery et al. 2011; Rosa-
Sibakov et al. 2015a).
Drying increased the brittleness of
the material, which allowed
improved particle size reduction
and subsequently higher mass
yield of the protein-enriched
fraction. This was postulated to
mostly result from the breakage of
the cell walls liberating protein, and
therefore, the protein enrichment
level was not compromised.
II
Barley
endo-
sperm
fraction
Mixing
with 0.5%
Aerosil
200F flow
aid
High-starch materials with
relatively fine particle size
tend to flow poorly inside
dry processing equipment
(Dijkink et al. 2007).
Mixing the material with a flow aid
improved flowability by decreasing
cohesion and van der Waals forces
between the particles, which
further aided protein separation
and resulted in higher mass yield of
the protein-enriched fraction
without compromising the protein
content reached.
III
In regard to particle size reduction, the present work also investigated the ultra-
fine milling of wheat and rye brans (II). Ultra-fine milling was studied to allow
better comparison of the protein-enriched fractions produced by air
classification and having small particle sizes with the non-fractionated brans
since particle size is recognised to have a considerable impact on
technological ingredient functionality. Therefore, a comparison of the fine
fractions with the ultra-finely milled brans rather than the coarser pin disc-
milled brans was considered important. In ultra-fine milling, the pre-drying step
was omitted, firstly, since its effect was supposed to be minor when the more
impactful milling was applied and, secondly, so as not to further increase the
energy consumption of the intensive milling process. However, continuing the
dry processing of the ultra-finely milled brans by air classification was not
considered to have potential for various reasons. First, reducing the particle
size of the non-protein components in ultra-fine milling would restrict protein
75
enrichment in the following air classification step. Second, damaged starch
content increases in extensive milling (Berton et al. 2002; Drakos et al. 2017a;
Niu et al. 2014; Tester 1997), again limiting the protein fractionation in air
classification due to formation of small-sized starch fragments (Létang et al.
2002; Lundgren 2011; Pelgrom et al. 2013). Third, too fine milling lowers the
flowability of the flour particles (Pelgrom et al. 2013). Finally, the potential heat
generation during milling, resulting in protein denaturation or particle
aggregation, which have earlier been reported to take place in intensive milling
(Drakos et al. 2017a; Rommi et al. 2015b; Van Craeyveld et al. 2009), was
suggested to limit protein separation by dry means. Indeed, particle
aggregation or protein denaturation may be supported by the observed
lowered protein solubility of the ultra-finely milled brans compared with only
pin disc-milled brans, as discussed in more detail in Section 6.2.1.
Regarding the barley endosperm fraction, which can be considered a side
stream fraction from the dry separation of barley β-glucan, the main limitation
in dry processing was associated with the small particle size and high starch
content. Small protein particles may be attached to the larger starch granules
as it is known that particles <200 µm are cohesive (Teunou et al. 1999) and
small particles tend to adhere to the surfaces of larger particles (Möller et al.
2021). Dijkink et al. (2007) showed that high starch content decreased powder
dispersability in air, which is an essential property in air classification.
Flowability can be improved by the addition of Aerosil flow aid to flour, which
enlargens the particle–particle distance and reduces van der Waals forces
(Müller et al. 2008; Pelgrom et al. 2014). During air classification, both the
mass yield and PSE of a protein-enriched lupine fraction were more than
doubled by using flow aids despite 10% less protein content being reached
(Pelgrom et al. 2014). In the current work, more moderate increases in mass
yield and PSE were observed (an increase from 5.3 to 6.3% and an increase
from 16.9 to 21.6%, respectively). In contrast to the results of Pelgrom et al.
(2014), the protein content of the fine fraction was also increased in this study
(from 26.3 to 28.3%) when the flow aid was used, implying that the addition of
the flow aid in the barley endosperm fraction improved more efficiently the flow
properties. Furthermore, assuming that all the added Aerosil ended up in the
fine fraction, the actual PSE was even higher than reported.
6.1.2 PROTEIN ENRICHMENT FROM CEREAL SIDE STREAMS IN
RELATION TO THEIR STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION
Protein enrichment from plant raw materials is traditionally carried out by wet
extraction. However, dry fractionation can offer a sustainable and energy
efficient alternative to wet processing although the dry processing of cereal
grains only results in a moderate enrichment of the desired components.
Understanding the cellular architecture of the grain is critical in order to
enhance the dry fractionation efficacy of the different components. During
protein enrichment from cereal raw materials, the relationship between the
Discussion
76
morphology and size of starch and protein constituents plays a crucial role.
The similarities between the sizes of protein bodies (0.5–5 µm) (Juliano and
Bechtel 1985; Pernollet 1978) and B-type small starch granules in wheat, rye
and barley subaleurone and aleurone regions (Goering et al. 1973; Heneen
and Brismar 1987; Takeda et al. 1999) limit protein fractionation. In this work,
a rather even distribution of starch in the fine and coarse fractions was
observed during the air classification of wheat and rye brans as the starch
content of the fine fraction did not considerably differ from that of the raw
material. This supports both the presence of small-sized starch granules in the
subaleurone region of the starchy endosperm of wheat and rye, and their
fractionation to the fine fraction, together with the protein, while the larger
granules separate to the coarse fraction. It is noteworthy that cereal brans
botanically contain no starch and considerable variations in the starch
contents of brans from different species result from the differing amounts of
starchy endosperm present in the bran preparations. As the starch contents
did not increase in the air classification of wheat and rye brans in this work,
the presence of low amounts (2.0–2.2%) of damaged starch in the pin disc-
milled wheat and rye bran raw materials was not presumed to have affected
the protein fractionation. Despite the even distribution of starch granules in the
air classification of dried and pin disc-milled wheat and rye brans, the protein
contents were increased in air classification from 16.4 and 14.7%,
respectively, to 30.9 and 30.7%, respectively, which are higher values than
previously reported in literature for wheat bran air classifications (Ranhotra et
al. 1994).
In mature starchy endosperm, such as in the barley endosperm fraction,
the starch granules are embedded in a matrix formed of storage proteins
(Darlington et al. 2000). As the proteins in the endosperm are not located in
separate structural units like protein bodies, the enrichment of proteins
applying size- and density-based approaches relies rather on the distribution
of starch granules and protein clusters in small and large particles in the milled
flour. In this work, the small-sized starch granules of the barley endosperm
fraction were found to contain a denser protein matrix around them, whereas
around the large granules, the protein matrix was less dense. Thus, protein
enrichment was obtained by enriching the small particles where a dense
protein matrix was surrounding the small starch granules. However, further
enrichment was considered to not be plausible due to the presence of small
starch granules in all barley raw materials, and this was also proven when
finding the balance between high protein content and low mass yield in this
work.
In rice, individual starch granules (3–9 µm) are located inside amyloplasts
(7–39 µm) (Juliano 1985; Saio and Noguchi 1983). The one-step air
classification of defatted and pin disc-milled rice bran allowed decreasing the
starch content of the fine fraction from the original 23.5 to 7.9%, suggesting
that the applied pre-processing steps (i.e. SC-CO2 extraction and pin disc
milling) did not degrade the amyloplasts into separate starch granules and
77
enabled starch fractionation into the coarse fraction. On the contrary, single
starch granules are shown to be released from the compound granules (i.e.
the amyloplasts) during the wetting of rice flours (Saio and Noguchi 1983) and
the same may have taken place in other research reporting rice bran air
classification in literature applying solvent extraction for bran deoiling, which
would partly explain the more limited protein enrichment (from 15 to 16%)
reported earlier for rice bran (Saio and Noguchi 1983). In this work, the rice
bran protein content was increased from 18.5 to 25.7–27.4%. Another factor
improving protein enrichment specifically from rice bran was the potential
positive impact of SC-CO2 extraction, which was proven to not induce protein
denaturation and allowed utilising rice bran without a heat-stabilisation step.
However, the PSE values in all bran fractionations remained relatively low at
18–38%, evidencing that most of the bran proteins remained in the coarse
fraction(s) after air classification. This indicates that the liberation of protein
from inside the larger cellular structures was not complete. A similar
observation has been previously reported by Antoine et al. (2004b) who
demonstrated that 47% of the wheat bran aleurone cells remained at particles
>200 µm after pin disc milling. Another reason for the modest protein
recoveries can be ascribed to the potential impact of particle size reduction on
inducing the adhesion of small-sized particles onto the surfaces of larger
particles via the charging of the particles (Möller et al. 2021). Moreover, too
efficient particle size reduction of the non-proteinaceous bran components
may have diluted the protein content of the fine fractions.
During protein enrichment, a concurrent decrease in the amount of IDF was
observed for all the bran raw materials. This was postulated to result from the
removal of pericarp structures that are known to be rich in insoluble cellulose
and lignin. Indeed, the removal of the pericarp was detected in microscopy
analysis of the protein-enriched rice bran fractions. Due to the fact that the
incorporation of IDF into food products is considered challenging owing to
taste, mouthfeel and technological aspects, the altered ratio between SDF and
IDF in the produced hybrid ingredient fractions proposes elevated suitability of
these ingredients, especially in high-moisture food applications. In spite of the
lowered amounts of IDF, the total amount of DF remained at good levels,
allowing gaining the nutritional benefits of DF consumption. An increase in the
SDF:IDF ratio in a protein-enriched air-classified wheat flour fraction has also
been reported earlier by Létang et al. (2002).
Defining the histological origin of the proteins present in the protein-
enriched bran fractions was achieved by studying the phytic acid fractionation
in air classification as well as by analysing the protein solubility (Section 6.2.1)
and protein profiles. Remarkable enrichment of phytic acid in all of the protein-
enriched bran fractions occurred in the present study. Aleurone grains (i.e. the
protein bodies of rice, wheat and rye brans) are reported to be rich in phytic
acid, and thus, its enrichment provides evidence of the enrichment of
aleurone-derived protein (Antoine et al. 2004b; Bohn et al. 2007; Parker 1981;
Tanaka et al. 1978; Wada and Lott 1997). Previously, Ranhotra et al. (1994)
Discussion
78
showed a similar enrichment of phytic acid into a protein fraction produced
from wheat bran by air classification. Antoine et al. (2004b) also reported that
pin disc milling, sieving and air classification of the finest fraction from wheat
bran sieving resulted in a phytate-enriched fraction (14.3% vs 7.3% in the
bran) with a 10% mass yield that was discussed to be mainly (66%) composed
of aleurone cell contents and was free of pericarp structures. In this work,
SDS-PAGE analysis proved further evidence of the enrichment of aleurone
proteins in the protein-enriched fractions. For wheat, proteins at 10, 17–18,
just below 25 and 32 kDa are associated with albumin/globulin and were
enriched in the protein fraction, whereas some potential small-sized proteins
that also account for these protein classes were rather removed from the
fraction (De Brier et al. 2015; Schalk et al. 2017). A similar observation was
also made in regard to rye bran, where most of the small-sized proteins
showed enrichment in the fine fraction. However, some of those proteins may
also originate from the secalins of the endosperm (Gellrich et al. 2003; Redant
et al. 2017; Schalk et al. 2017). For rice, globulin and some albumin proteins
(Amagliani et al. 2017) were hypothesised to be enriched in the protein
fractions based on SDS-PAGE. In the case of rice bran, aleurone protein
enrichment was further supported by a reduction in the starch content, which
proves that endosperm-derived starch granules, potentially enclosed by an
endosperm protein matrix, did not enrich in the protein fraction. This also
suggests that the protein enrichment was not due to starchy endosperm
storage protein enrichment but, rather, due to fractionation of the released
protein bodies from inside the aleurone cells. The successful enrichment of
protein bodies from rice bran may also partially explain the low protein content
reached due to the fact that the protein content of rice aleurone grains is
reported to only reach 14% whereas 56% of the grains are composed of phytic
acid (Tanaka et al. 1973). In comparison, the protein content of wheat bran
protein bodies is 46% and phytic acid content is 40% (Bohn et al. 2007).
For rice bran, in addition to a one-step air classification process, a two-step
approach was also investigated. In this process, the first fine fraction was not
highly enriched in protein, contained small-sized aleurone cell wall structures
and some starch, and it was rather devoid of pericarp structures. Interestingly,
further processing of the coarse fraction from the first fractionation step by pin
disc milling and air classification allowed protein enrichment up to 27.4%. In
addition, the second fine fraction of this process also recovered almost all of
the rest of the raw material SDF that was not recovered into the first fine
fraction of this process. Hence, the developed two-step fractionation process
for rice bran valorisation is considered valuable for recovering the SDF
structures. In general, one plausible option for increasing the protein or fibre
enrichment level in dry processing is to apply multiple fractionation steps.
However, a drawback of multi-step dry processing is that the enrichment takes
place at the expense of mass yield. This means that both mass yield and PSE
are lowered and, therefore, the feasibility of such multi-step processes, in
comparison with one-step processes, should be carefully evaluated. On the
79
other hand, a light techno-economic assessment of a one-step process
concept closely similar to the current dry processing approach applied in
wheat bran protein enrichment has already been proven to be promising in
terms of concept feasibility (Hytönen and Sorsamäki 2018).
6.2 THE EFFECT OF DRY FRACTIONATION ON THE TECHNO-FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF CEREAL SIDE STREAM INGREDIENTS
Most foods are composed of a multitude of compounds, all of them affecting
the product properties. Therefore, the holistic functionality of multi-component
protein-enriched hybrid ingredients should be understood. It must be noted
that, for the hybrid ingredient, the protein functionality should not be
overestimated as the other major components (mainly starch and DF, but also
some minor components, such as phytic acid) may have a crucial impact on
the overall ingredient applicability. Applying specific techno-functionality
measurements can, however, be used as a preliminary tool to estimate the
food applicability of the multicomponent systems, and thus, both protein- and
carbohydrate-associated analytics were carried out in the current work to
explore the hybrid ingredient fractions.
6.2.1 CHANGES IN PROTEIN SOLUBILITY
Protein solubility is the key techno-functional feature that affects certain
structure-forming properties of proteins. The solubility of plant proteins
depends largely on pH and other environmental conditions. In the current
study, the lowest protein solubilities were detected for all the raw materials and
protein-enriched fractions in the pH values around the range of reported
isoelectric points that are: 4–6.2 for wheat (Arte et al. 2019; Balandrán-
Quintana et al. 2015; Csonka et al. 1926; Idris et al. 2003), 4.6–7.6 for rye
(Csonka et al. 1926; Meuser et al. 2001) and 5–6 for barley (Bilgi and Çelik
2004; Wang et al. 2010; Yalçin et al. 2008). For rice, various isoelectric points
ranging from 4.1 to even 7.9 have been reported (Adebiyi et al. 2007;
Amagliani et al. 2017; Chandi and Sogi 2007; Ju et al. 2001).
The impact of protein fractionation on protein solubility at pH 5, 6.7–6.8 and
8 was investigated for rice bran (I), wheat bran (II) and rye bran (II).
Interestingly, the observed effects were species specific. The fine fractions of
rice bran exhibited higher protein solubilities than the pin disc-milled raw
material bran at all three pH values whereas the fine wheat bran fraction was
more soluble than the pin disc-milled raw material at neutral and alkaline pH
and less soluble at pH 5. On the contrary, the fine rye bran fraction was less
soluble than its pin disc-milled raw material at all three pH values. The
improved solubilities of the rice and wheat bran fractions in comparison with
their raw materials may be explained by the successful enrichment of more
Discussion
80
soluble albumin and globulin protein classes from inside the aleurone cells,
where they are concentrated in the wheat, rice and rye kernels (Amagliani et
al. 2017; Bushuk 2001; De Brier et al. 2015). In particular, the aleurone protein
bodies that are rich in phytate are reported to exhibit high protein solubility of
70% in rice (Tanaka et al. 1973). Moreover, the finer particle sizes of the
fractions may improve the solubilisation from the protein-enriched fractions as
well. De Brier et al. (2015) also reported a considerable increase in the albumin
and globulin protein solubilities of wheat bran as a result of ball milling. The
lowered protein solubility of the air-classified rye bran fraction in comparison
with the raw material remains somewhat challenging to explain. It is possible
that the protein liberated from inside the aleurone cells in milling and further
fractionated into the fine fraction is partly insoluble by nature. Another possible
explanation is the formation of protein aggregates during the pin disc milling
of rye bran and the enrichment of those insoluble particles in the protein
fraction. Moreover, based on the percentual increments in the phytic acid
content of the fine fractions, which reached 90% for rye while being 148–182%
and 189% in the one-step air classifications of rice and wheat brans
respectively, it may be possible that the enrichment of aleurone-derived
proteins was less evident for rye than for other raw materials. Therefore, the
enrichment of proteins other than aleurone proteins, such as insoluble starchy
endosperm proteins, may have lowered the overall protein solubility in rye. On
the contrary, the enrichment of starchy endosperm proteins in the protein-
enriched wheat bran fraction was not suggested to have taken place since
wheat gluten exhibits low protein solubility at the studied pH values, especially
at alkaline pH, and thus should have lowered the protein solubility if enriched
(Deng et al. 2016).
The bran protein solubility values were somewhat higher than observed in
literature earlier for similar raw materials. For differently milled wheat brans,
protein solubility values ranging from 12 to 14% at pH 5.5 and from 14 to 40%
at pH 6.5–7.5 have been reported (De Brier et al. 2015; Idris et al. 2003),
whereas in this study the values ranged from 30 to 76% between pH 5 and 8.
Likewise, for rice, the literature values have ranged from approximately 5 to
15% at pH 5 and from 50 to 60% at pH 8 (Bera and Mukherjee 1989;
Gnanasambandam and Hettiarachchy 1995; Zhu et al. 2017), while this study
showed solubilities of 30–46% and 67–83% at pH 5 and pH 8 respectively.
Limited data is available on rye bran protein solubility in literature. However,
solubility of 31.9% in a saline buffer at pH 6.9, reported by Nordlund et al.
(2013b), is close to the value 42.2% obtained at pH 6.7 in the current work.
The reasoning for the higher solubilities detected in the current work may lie
in various factors. First, the ratio between soluble and insoluble proteins in the
commercial bran preparations may vary due to differing amounts of insoluble
starchy endosperm proteins present in the bran. Second, the differences in
the protein extraction methods applied in different studies (i.e. dry fractionation
or concentration/isolation via alkaline wet extraction) affecting both protein
composition and the degree of protein denaturation, as well as the details of
81
the protein solubility analysis, all have an impact on the values obtained. Third,
as already discussed in the previous chapter, the particle size reduction of the
raw material has a prominent impact on the protein solubilisation due to, for
example, the release of the proteins physically entrapped by the intact fibrous
cell wall structures (Antoine et al. 2004a; Van Craeyveld et al. 2009). However,
high-impact milling for particle size reduction may also result in protein
aggregation (Drakos et al. 2017b, 2017a; Van Craeyveld et al. 2009). Indeed,
the ultra-fine milling applied in the current research for wheat and rye brans
lowered the protein solubilities throughout the pH range when compared with
the more gently pin disc-milled raw materials, and thus, ultra-fine milling is not
considered a suitable processing method for bran materials that are targeted
towards applications demanding high protein solubility. The reasoning for the
lowered protein solubility was assumed to be the heat generated during milling
causing partial protein denaturation, as has been previously reported to occur
for rapeseed press cake proteins with similar ultra-fine milling (Rommi et al.
2015b).
6.2.2 CHANGES IN OTHER TECHNO-FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES
The pasting properties of the cereal-based raw materials and their protein-
enriched fractions are largely dependent on the starch content of the sample.
Indeed, the higher starch content of barley samples (III) resulted in much
higher peak and final viscosities than those observed for wheat and rye bran
samples (II). Likewise, the higher starch content of rye compared with wheat
bran was noted in the differences in the peak and final viscosities of rye and
wheat brans. The positive correlation between the starch content and peak
viscosities in viscoamylograms has also been reported for barley fractions by
Sumner et al. (1985). In accordance with the observed relationship between
the starch content and viscosities, all the fine fractions exhibited lower peak
and final viscosities than their raw materials, which delivers enhanced
viscosity control during food processing. Understanding the content and
quality of starch is important, especially in high-moisture food systems where
a heat treatment followed by rapid cooling is usually required, which brings
about starch gelatinisation and retrogradation phenomena during processing.
In addition to starch content, also the starch granule size is known to play a
role in the extent and impact of starch gelatinisation. Kumar and Khatkar
(2017) reported lower peak and final viscosities for small B-type starch
granules when compared with non-separated wheat starch, including both A-
and B-type granules. Similar outcomes were also noted in this work for the
protein-enriched wheat bran and barley endosperm fractions. For rye, lower
peak viscosity was observed for the protein-enriched fraction, whereas the
final viscosity was interestingly higher for the fraction than for the pin disc-
milled raw material. Ultra-finely milled rye bran exhibited considerably higher
viscosities compared with the pin disc-milled bran. Damaged starch content of
the ultra-finely milled bran was higher than that of the pin disc-milled bran, but
Discussion
82
typically, damaged starch is known to lower the peak and final viscosities in
an RVA, which is contrary to the relationship observed in this work. For
example, Hasjim et al. (2013) reported that increasing the damaged starch
content in rice flour decreased the final viscosity, and Barrera et al. (2007)
showed that an increased amount of damaged starch reduced the peak
viscosity of wheat starch suspension. Hence, the reasons for clear differences
in the viscosities of the differently milled rye bran samples requires further
investigation. In addition to starch, higher IDF content in the brans compared
with the protein-enriched fractions may have increased the peak and final
viscosities, which is in line with the study by Lai et al. (2011) who reported
increased viscosities when adding IDF to rice starch suspensions. Moreover,
β-glucan-rich air-classified fractions prepared from oat bran concentrate have
been shown to exhibit higher peak and final viscosities in an RVA compared
with the raw material (Stevenson et al. 2008).
In high-moisture food systems, the ingredient stability in dispersions has a
crucial role. For all the bran materials, decreasing the particle size in both ultra-
fine milling and air classification resulted in improvements in the dispersion
stability (I, II). Similarly, reduced particle size via microfluidisation has been
found to improve the colloidal stability of wheat bran (Rosa-Sibakov et al.
2015b; De Bondt et al. 2020). This is postulated to result from the significant
reduction in particle size, which retards sedimentation. The parameters
determining dispersion stability are formulated in Stokes’ law, which states that
the particle size and density, as well as viscosity of the continuous phase affect
the sedimentation velocity. Hence, in addition to the reduced particle size, the
enrichment of soluble proteins, removal of insoluble carbohydrates and
release of some minor grain components during ultra-fine milling of the bran
may also have influenced the overall dispersion stability.
In addition to the dispersion stabilities of the bran-water mixtures,
considerably improved colloidal stability was noted in emulsification
experiments carried out for fine wheat and rye bran samples (II).
Understanding the behaviour of the ingredient in an emulsion system offers
valuable insights into its application potential, for example, in plant-based milk
substitutes. In this work the emulsion stability was followed for 1 d, during
which the particle size remained unchanged and only minor clarification was
observed on the top of the otherwise homogenous dispersion. In the related
literature, Idris et al. (2003) studied the emulsification of wheat bran protein
isolate by assessing a 1% protein solution emulsified with 25% oil at neutral
pH and observed a decrease in the height of the emulsified layer from 100 to
70% already during three hours. In another study, microscopy observation
revealed that wheat bran protein isolate emulsions were inherently unstable
(Arte et al. 2019). The emulsification of rice bran protein concentrate (20% oil,
1% protein in an aqueous solution) by Chandi and Sogi (2007) showed that
40% of the total dispersion height was emulsified at pH 7 and the height
remained constant during the first day but decreased to approximately 20% in
three days. In comparison, in this work, the whole sample was visually
83
observed to be homogenously emulsified right after emulsification. The soluble
components (i.e. proteins and SDF) in the ingredients may have facilitated
emulsification in various ways. Some polysaccharides, such as pectin,
galactomannan and gum arabic, are known to exhibit interfacial activity, but
those were not presumed to be largely present in the studied fractions due to
the known biochemical composition of wheat and rye bran DF (Parker et al.
2005). Soluble arabinoxylans, on the other hand, were certainly present and
may have contributed to emulsion formation and/or stabilisation by adsorption
to the oil–water interface or by increasing the continuous phase viscosity,
respectively (Mikkonen et al. 2008). The emulsifying activity and subsequent
emulsion stability provided by proteins in food colloids rely on two
mechanisms: either the adsorption of soluble molecules to the oil–water
interface due to their amphiphilic nature and the formation of a viscoelastic
layer or adsorption as colloidal particles, like in the case of Pickering
emulsions, providing increased steric stabilisation (Dickinson 2013;
McClements 2007). Foaming is also an important parameter to assess when
evaluating plant protein functionality and in this work it was studied for the
protein-enriched barley fraction (III). The poor foaming capacity of the
ingredient can be related to low protein solubility at the studied pH values, as
well as to the high content of non-protein components in the fraction. The
mechanisms of emulsion or foam formation were not elucidated in the current
study, however, they remain highly interesting topics to explore for complex
multi-component matrices.
OBC and WBC are relevant properties that provide insight into the
ingredient applicability in semi-solid and oil-containing food products since
they affect, for example, product texture, stability and mouthfeel (Elleuch et al.
2011; Kinsella 1976). In the current work, the WBC values were in the range
of 1.2–2.7 g/g, the lowest values accounting for the only barley sample
analysed (i.e. the protein-enriched barley fraction), which contained the lowest
amount of DF. The results emphasise the impact of DF components on the
WBC of the multicomponent ingredients. In literature, high WBC values have
been reported for DF ingredients, such as fine and coarse oat brans (7.0 and
5.7 g/g) (Kurek et al. 2015) and dry-fractionated DF concentrates from rice
bran (4.5–4.7 g/g) (Wang et al. 2016). For protein ingredients, the literature
values have been shown to range between 1.1. and 5.6 g/g for different rice
bran and endosperm, wheat bran and barley protein ingredients (Chandi and
Sogi 2007; Idris et al. 2003; Nisov et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2010; C. Wang et
al. 2014). Moreover, for wheat bran, values with the opposite impacts of
grinding between 2.7 and 4.6 g/g have been reported (Caprez et al. 1986; Zhu
et al. 2010). In this work, the fine protein-enriched bran fractions from wheat
and rye exhibited low WBC and OBC, and this most probably resulted from
the small particle size of the fractions causing lowered physical entrapment of
both water and oil to the ingredient matrices (Auffret et al. 1994; De Bondt et
al. 2020; Drakos et al. 2017a; Zhang and Moore 1997; Zhu et al. 2010).
However, increased surface area after particle size reduction has been
Discussion
84
reported to improve the water binding properties in some cases (Elleuch et al.
2011). The significance of the milling intensity applied in ingredient
manufacturing was also highlighted. First, higher WBC was observed for the
ultra-finely milled rye bran compared with pin disc-milled rye bran. This was
suggested to result from the formation of damaged starch, capable of binding
more water than native starch (Berton et al. 2002; Drakos et al. 2017a; Niu et
al. 2014), during ultra-fine milling of rye bran that has a relatively high starch
content. Second, ultra-finely milled wheat bran exhibited lower WBC
compared with pin disc-milled wheat bran, which may have resulted from the
impact of ultra-fine milling, damaging the physical fibrous bran structures
responsible for binding water.
In this work the OBCs ranged between 1.0 and 1.4 g/g. Similar values have
been reported in literature, for example, for unground and ground wheat brans
(1.2 and 1.6 g/g, respectively; Caprez et al. 1986), wheat bran protein isolate
(1.6 g/g; Idris et al. 2003) and rice endosperm protein isolate (1.0 g/g; Nisov
et al. 2020). On the contrary, higher values have been reported for dry-
fractionated DF concentrates from rice bran (5.1–6.7 g/g, with the initial OBC
of the bran being 3.1 g/g; Wang et al. 2016), rice bran protein fractions (1.0–
3.6 g/g; C. Wang et al. 2014), rice bran protein concentrates (3.7–9.2 g/g;
Chandi and Sogi 2007) and barley protein isolates (5.2–5.7 g/g; Wang et al.
2010).
6.3 MODIFICATION OF THE TECHNO-FUNCTIONAL INGREDIENT PROPERTIES BY ENZYMATIC AND PHYSICAL PROCESSING
The limited food applicability of plant-derived proteins and ingredients may
arise from various aspects that decrease their techno-functional properties. In
this work, improving the functionality of the protein-enriched rice bran fraction
(IV) and barley endosperm fraction (V) in high-moisture food systems was
investigated by applying phytase treatment (IV) and ultrasonication with or
without pH shifting (V), respectively.
6.3.1 IMPROVING THE HEAT-INDUCED GELATION OF THE PROTEIN-
ENRICHED RICE BRAN FRACTION BY PHYTASE TREATMENT
The ability of food ingredients to provide a heat-induced viscosifying or gelling
effect is an essential technological functionality that is relevant in a vast range
of applications from bakery and dairy to meat and meat analogue products. In
this study, the protein-enriched rice bran fraction had a nutritionally interesting
composition including a good amount of both protein and soluble DF, and thus,
utilisation of 14% solid content provided a protein concentration of 3.3% and
total DF content of 3%, enabling the claim that the potential food product is a
‘source of fibre’ according to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (EC 2006).
85
However, during the air classification-based production process of the protein-
enriched fraction from a defatted and pin disc-milled rice bran, the enrichment
of phytic acid content to 21.6% also took place. Due to the fact that phytic acid
binds minerals and protein, it may reduce their bioavailability and technological
functionality (Kies et al. 2006; Rosa-Sibakov et al. 2018; Selle et al. 2000).
Hence, the contribution of phytic acid to the heat-induced gelation properties
of the protein-enriched rice bran fraction was elucidated using phytase
treatment.
At acidic pH below the isoelectric point of most plant proteins, phytic acid
and proteins exhibit negative and positive net charges, respectively, resulting
in their complexation, which may lower the protein solubility. As expected,
phytase treatment of the protein-enriched rice bran fraction improved protein
solubility at acidic pH, and similar results are also reported for rice pollards
(Kies et al. 2006) and faba bean flour (Rosa-Sibakov et al. 2018). At alkaline
pH, both protein and phytic acid exhibit a negative net charge, which results
in their dissociation in a liquid environment. Instead of a direct electrostatic
interaction at alkaline pH, the presence of a ternary protein-mineral-phytic acid
complex has been reported that might affect protein solubilisation as well
(Selle et al. 2000). For example, H. Wang et al. (2014) observed increased
soy protein solubility at neutral pH after phytic acid addition and postulated it
to result from the increased protein net charge due to the ternary
complexation. In the current study, the degradation of phytic acid also had a
minor negative impact on protein solubility under alkaline conditions.
The heat-induced gelation of the control (non-enzyme treated) protein-
enriched rice bran sample resulted in stronger gels, observed as increased G'
and WHC, and lowered tan δ values, at alkaline (pH 8) and neutral (pH 6.7)
conditions compared with acidic conditions (pH 5). This phenomenon has
earlier been reported to also apply in the heat-induced gelation of canola
protein isolates (Kim et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2014) and corn germ protein
isolates (Sun et al. 2017) and is attributed to increased repulsive interactions
at alkaline pH. The fortified repulsive forces retard the formation of large
protein aggregates during heating, enabling the formation of small soluble
aggregates which are, at the later stages of gelation, responsible for network
formation via hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonding, as well as
disulphide bonding. Due to the fact that the protein solubility values of the
control samples differed only a little at pH 6.7 (46%) and pH 8 (49%), the
impact arising from protein solubility was not assumed to considerably affect
gelation under those pH conditions. Solubility at pH 5 was shown to be
remarkably lower for the same protein-enriched rice bran fraction analysed
directly as water dispersion when compared with similarly analysed samples
at pH 6.7 and 8 (I).
The most significant improvements in the gel strength of the rice bran
fraction were proposed to be partially linked to the compounds released
concurrently in the degradation of the salt form of phytic acid (phytate), for
example, calcium and phosphates, and also with the conformational protein
Discussion
86
changes. The protein-related changes were observed as increased surface
hydrophobicity after phytase treatment (analysed at pH 6.7), enabling more
pronounced hydrophobic protein interactions during heating and cooling and
thus aiding gelation. Another important factor facilitating the gelation of the
phytase-treated sample at alkaline pH was attributed to the gelation of the
pectin present in the fraction. Low methoxyl pectin is known to gel in the
presence of calcium via calcium-mediated junction zones and its gelation
behaviour has been reported to be the most pronounced at a slightly alkaline
pH of 8.5 (Yang et al. 2018). Moreover, the release of phosphates during
phytic acid degradation may have improved gelation by reducing the thermal
stability of the proteins, as has been shown for lysozyme in the presence of
phosphates (Cao et al. 2016). The most significant increases in the G' values
during the gelation experiments were observed during the cooling phase. The
primary explanation for this lies in the formation of hydrophobic interactions
between the proteins that are favoured by cooling (Dickinson 2012), which
also further supports the importance of the hydrophobic interactions that
improve gelation of the phytase-treated rice bran samples. Moreover, the
gelation of pectin mainly occurs during the cooling of a heated dispersion
(Urias-Orona et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2018). Other factors that probably
affected the structure of the gel system include the insoluble fibres contributing
to water retention and the gelatinised and retrograded starch. However, starch
concentration remained only at one third of the concentration of protein and
DF in the system.
6.3.2 IMPROVING THE PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF
BARLEY PROTEIN INGREDIENTS BY ULTRASOUND
TREATMENT AND PH SHIFTING
The protein-enriched barley fraction exhibited limited techno-functional
properties. Currently, relatively little is known about the applicability of barley-
based ingredients in high-moisture food applications (e.g. dairy substitutes),
and therefore, properties relevant in those systems were targeted to be
altered. Ultrasound technology in combination with a pH-shifting approach was
studied to evaluate the impacts on the techno-functional properties of a
protein-enriched barley fraction and a barley protein isolate.
Shifting the pH of both the protein-enriched barley fraction and barley
protein isolate dispersions to pH 9 without ultrasound treatment followed by
readjustment to pH 7 increased the solubility of both ingredients and also the
colloidal stability of the isolate when compared with the samples incubated at
only pH 7. A similar impact of alkaline pH shifting on protein solubility has been
reported for legume proteins in various studies (Jiang et al. 2018, 2010, 2017;
Lee et al. 2016). The protein modifications that occur during the pH-shifting
approach have been associated with partial protein unfolding at alkaline pH
and then refolding at neutral pH, which leads to the formation of a molten
globule state (Christensen and Pain 1991; Hirose 1993; Jiang et al. 2009).
87
Moreover, the previous research in this field has claimed that pH shifting
increases the structural flexibility of proteins and ionic interactions between
charged amino acid residues and water. Interestingly, both the previous
studies and the current work have revealed that protein solubility did not
increase during acidic pH shifting followed by neutralisation, suggesting that
for these studied plant proteins, the positive effect only occurs with alkaline
shifting.
In this work, the ultrasound treatment of the protein-enriched barley fraction
only improved protein solubility significantly at alkaline pH 9, whereas no clear
impact was seen in solubility at pH 7 or pH 3. Colloidal stability after ultrasound
treatment was improved both at neutral and alkaline pH but not at pH 3, which
might be partly related to the effect of neutral and alkaline pH on protein
structure and solubility being amplified by cavitation during sonication. For the
isolate, significant changes in solubilities were detected as a result of
ultrasonication at all the studied pH values and all sonicated samples were
also colloidally stable. The difference between the isolate and protein fraction
might have derived from the presence of non-protein components that were
not considerably affected by the ultrasound treatment applied. However, for
both ingredients, a remarkable reduction in particle size was noted after
ultrasonication, most probably contributing to the improved dispersion stability
(discussed also in Section 6.2.2). Various studies have similarly evidenced
ultrasound-assisted improvements in the protein solubility of plant protein
isolates and concentrates that mainly originate from legume sources (Hu et al.
2013; Jiang et al. 2017; Martínez-Velasco et al. 2018), as well as millet (Nazari
et al. 2018) and canola (Flores-Jiménez et al. 2019), whereas no data is
available about the application of ultrasound treatment for improving the
solubility of cereal-based hybrid protein ingredients. For both of the barley
protein ingredients, a combination of alkaline ultrasound treatment and shifting
the pH to 7 improved colloidal stability and protein solubility more than pH
shifting or ultrasound treatment (at neutral pH) alone. Similar improvements
from the combined ultrasound treatment and pH shifting have been reported
for soy protein (Yildiz et al. 2017) and pea protein (Jiang et al. 2017). The
combined impact of shifting and sonication was also more pronounced under
alkaline rather than under acidic conditions in both the current work and in
other research. These findings propose that in order to facilitate the
applicability of barley protein ingredients in high-moisture food systems,
protein solubility and/or colloidal stability can be improved by both of the
studied treatments specifically in the neutral pH region.
No modifications in the SDS-PAGE profiles of either of the barley protein
ingredients were observed as a result of ultrasonication. This was in line with
most of the literature concerning plant protein functionalisation by ultrasound
treatment (Flores-Jiménez et al. 2019; Hu et al. 2013; O’Sullivan et al. 2016,
2015) and depicts that no modifications in primary protein structure took place
in sonication but rather, the impacts observed derive from modifications and
the breaking of non-covalent interactions modifying the secondary protein
Discussion
88
structures (Hu et al. 2015; Jiang et al. 2014; Malik and Saini 2018; Martínez-
Velasco et al. 2018) and/or tertiary protein structures (Hu et al. 2015; Xiong et
al. 2018). However, it must be noted that contrary data is also available in the
literature (Nazari et al. 2018; Resendiz-Vazquez et al. 2017) and, as far as no
systematic comparison of different plant ingredients has been made, it
remains a matter of discussion whether the impact on the protein profile is
species specific or affected by the intensity and conditions of the ultrasound
treatment.
6.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
6.4.1 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The raw materials studied in the current work were all obtained as samples
from industrial-scale mills and, for example, no botanical factors (such as
growth conditions, year and varietal purity) were considered. Moreover, due to
the variation in grains between different growth locations and years, as well as
the specific process modifications in all industrial mills compared to other mills,
the milling process for bran removal always results in a somewhat inconsistent
composition. Thus, in this work, for example, it remains unknown how much
the bran preparation consisted of the whole kernel, which may complicate
making general conclusions about the applicability of the studied processes
for all possible brans of the same species. Additionally, the amount of non-
bran components (i.e. the starchy endosperm and germ) in the bran
preparations was not defined.
The dry-fractionated hybrid ingredients are not composed of single, pure
components but contain considerable amounts of various biomolecules, all of
which affect the behaviour of the ingredient. In regard to characterising the air-
classified fractions, the most attention was paid to the protein-enriched fine
fractions. However, a more detailed understanding of the properties of the
protein-depleted coarse fractions would probably have aided understanding
the restrictions in protein enrichment. The potential explanations for the fact
that only part of the protein transferred to the protein-enriched fraction are
physical entrapment of the protein or aggregation of the protein with the non-
proteinaceous particles of the coarse fraction. To clarify this, compositional,
techno-functional and microstructural analysis of the coarse fractions would
have guided their further processing.
The industrial scalability of the dry fractionation processes is known to be
relatively easy. However, in the current study many of the air classifications
were performed using maximum or close-to-maximum classifier wheel speeds
that are not easily reached in the larger-scale deflector wheel air classifiers
applied industrially (Furchner and Zampini 2012). This may present challenges
in the potential up-scaling of the processes and lower the industrial relevance
of the developed concepts. Nevertheless, one of the barley fractionation cases
89
(8 000 rpm at pilot scale) was also proven to work well at an industrial scale,
as evidenced in Publication V. Another factor possibly limiting industrial-scale
processability according to the concepts studied in this work is the SC-CO2
extraction applied in rice bran defatting. Currently, SC-CO2 extraction
technology is characterised by relatively high investment and operating costs,
which limit its industrial use. However, as it is widely accepted that rice bran
requires either a stabilisation or oil extraction step to prevent rancidification,
various extraction methods are being studied. SC-CO2 may provide a suitable
solution for this pre-treatment step since solvents, such as hexane, which are
traditionally applied in oil extraction, are not preferred by the consumers who
seek clean label solutions and processing.
6.4.2 ANALYTICS
The selection of the factor for converting the nitrogen content of foods
analysed by the Kjeldahl method into protein content is often under debate. In
this work, the nitrogen-to-protein conversion factor utilised for rice samples
was 5.95 since it is widely applied in the related literature. However, this value
was originally determined based on the amino acid composition of rice glutelin
(Juliano 1985), which was not assumed to form the major protein class in the
bran preparation studied in the current work and therefore shows a potential
limitation in the accuracy of the protein contents reported. Similarly, the protein
conversion factors applied for the wheat and rye bran materials may raise
questions as a factor 6.31 has been recommended for wheat bran and for rye
and barley flours the value of 5.83 is typically used. However, since the exact
amino acid composition of the raw materials, and especially the fractions,
differing considerably from the raw materials, was not possible to be
determined within this work, use of the general conversion factor of 6.25
(Jones 1932; Moore et al. 2010) was agreed as emphasised by FAO (2003).
Analysis of DF in this work was carried out according to different methods
in Publications I and III when compared to Publication II. In Publications I and
III, the older AOAC method 991.43 (AOAC 1995) was utilised, which does not
include analysis of the non-digestible oligosaccharides (i.e. soluble DF that
stays soluble in ethanol precipitation). On the contrary, the newer AOAC
method 2011.25 according to McCleary et al. (2012), which also detects the
non-digestible oligosaccharides that stay soluble in ethanol precipitation, was
applied in Publication II. Thus, application of the AOAC 2011.25 method for
rice (I) and barley (III) ingredients would have presumably resulted in higher
SDF values for those ingredients and further increased the SDF:IDF ratios
slightly.
Discussion
90
6.5 FUTURE PROSPECTS
The development of technologically and nutritionally valuable hybrid
ingredients from cereal side streams and their further functionalisation was
demonstrated in the current work. Dry fractionation revealed the enrichment
of protein in particular but the ratio between DF components was also affected,
phytic acid was co-enriched and the impact of fractionation on starch content
was shown to be raw-material specific. The more thorough characterisation of
the fractions in future studies could reveal other essential aspects relevant for
ingredient applicability. For example, the enrichment of antinutrients other than
phytic acid (such as trypsin inhibitors) in the fine bran fractions was not studied
but may unfortunately limit the food applicability of the produced fractions. The
microbiological quality and taste of the ingredients was not within the scope of
this work but is highly relevant when considering the real application potential
of these ingredients. The technological quality of ingredients is typically
studied in model systems as was also adopted in the current study. However,
the performance in complex food models or in actual food products, such as
plant-based milk substitutes, remains to be studied. The applicability of the
hybrid ingredients in solid foods, such as bakery products or dry- and wet-
extrudates, should be elucidated in future research since the balanced protein
and DF content, combined with the presence of starch and absence of vast
amounts of insoluble DF, could offer promising properties for such food
models. In regard to functionalisation, solutions for performing modifications
for the obtained fractions in situ during food manufacturing should be
investigated in terms of process feasibility for different food systems.
Moreover, functionalisation approaches (i.e. phytase treatment and
ultrasonication), which were only applied for selected fractions in this work,
would be highly interesting to be researched for the other raw material
fractions as well.
Understanding the bioaccessiblity of the proteins in the hybrid ingredients
is important, and thus, defining the impact of all the applied processing
methods on protein digestibility would yield valuable information in regard to
the nutritional quality of the ingredients. First, it would be relevant to
understand whether differences in pre-treatments, such as defatting or milling
intensity, influence protein digestibility. Moreover, it is important to assess the
effect of protein fractionation in air classification on the nutritional quality,
especially if the antinutritional factors are enriched in the protein-enriched
fractions during their production process. Last, potential modifications to the
nutritional quality of the protein-enriched ingredients that occurred during the
functionalisation processes (e.g. ultrasound treatment, pH-shifting and phytate
degradation) should be elucidated.
Protein enrichment from the pre-treated cereal side streams by milling and
air classification was shown to be successful, whereas the mass yields and
protein separation efficiencies can be considered limiting factors in terms of
process feasibility. In order to understand the structural constraints of the raw
91
materials that restrict component fractionation, more sophisticated imaging
techniques, combined with an increased understanding of the mechanical and
biochemical raw material structures, could allow improving the processes and
recovering more of the desired components in fractionation. Even though the
dry-fractionated ingredients are expected to, for example, effectively retain the
native techno-functional properties of the ingredient components, vitamins and
minerals, a side-stream fraction is always generated in fractionation. In many
cases, attention is only paid to the fraction enriched in the most desired
components (protein and DF in this work), whereas the applicability, properties
and composition of the side-stream fraction is less studied. Similarly, in this
work, the coarse, protein-depleted fractions were not studied despite the fact
that they are projected to contribute significantly to the overall feasibility of the
developed processing concepts. In the future, it would be important to identify
potential uses for the coarse, protein-depleted fractions. Such uses could
include their application for fibre enrichment purposes in food, as feedstock in
single-cell protein production or non-food purposes, such as biodegradable
packaging or animal feed.
Sustainability and resource sufficiency are key aspects of the newly
developed food processing concepts. Despite the gentle and low-energy-
consuming nature of the dry fractionation routes, improving the commercial
milling approaches that are closely linked to the processes studied in this work
should be targeted. From an industrial point of view, the modification of the
current production processes that yield refined flour, in order to directly recover
more of the valuable side stream components as food raw materials, would
improve the raw material utilisation. More specifically, the fractionation,
collection and defined applicability of all the grain layers (pericarp, aleurone,
subaleurone, the rest of the starchy endosperm) might provide added value
and reduce the production of side streams. Preliminary techno-economic
assessment of protein enrichment from wheat bran has previously been
carried out and proven feasible (Hytönen and Sorsamäki 2018). However, in
order to justify the use of the other developed dry fractionation concepts for
protein enrichment from rice and rye brans, and the barley endosperm fraction,
the feasibility of these processes should also be considered.
Conclusions
92
7 CONCLUSIONS
The increased consumption of plant-based ingredients and the valorisation of
agricultural side streams for food are supported by nutritional, environmental
and food security-related factors. Currently, most of the plant ingredients,
especially plant proteins, are produced via water-intensive production
processes in which severe treatment conditions may negatively affect the
important ingredient properties, such as nutritional quality and technological
functionality. On the contrary, dry fractionation is regarded more sustainable
and gentle processing approach allowing mild refinement of the plant raw
materials into ingredients enriched with desired components. Instead of pure
component isolation, dry fractionation yields in multicomponent, hybrid
ingredient fractions in which the technological and nutritional properties of all
the components, such as protein, DF and starch, may provide multiple
benefits.
In this work, use of dry fractionation for the production of hybrid ingredients
from cereal side streams was facilitated by pre-treatments that targeted
removing the main constraints of each ingredient. Rice bran with an initial oil
content of 22% was extracted with SC-CO2 for defatting, which allowed further
processing of the bran by pin disc milling and air classification. A one-step air
classification process increased the protein content from 18.5% in the defatted
rice bran to 25.7%, with 27.2% mass yield and 38.0% PSE, from the raw
material. Alternatively, the air classification of the defatted bran without a pre-
milling step allowed the removal of pericarp particles from the fine fraction, and
further milling and air classification of the coarse fraction resulted in even
higher protein content (27.4%). For wheat and rye brans, the known resistance
of aleurone cell wall structures to dry milling was minimised by including a pre-
drying step (48 h at 40°C). This enhanced particle size reduction by pin disc
milling, increased the mass yields of the protein-enriched fractions in air
classification and allowed protein enrichment from 16.4 to 30.9% for wheat
bran and from 14.7 to 30.7% for rye bran. Regarding the barley endosperm
fraction, the cohesiveness of the original flour was overcome by mixing the
material with a flowability aid, which increased the protein content (up to
28.3%), mass yield and PSE in air classification, presumably due to improved
material dispersability in the air during fractionation.
The dry-fractionated protein-enriched hybrid ingredients prepared from the
bran raw materials exhibited higher soluble-to-insoluble DF ratios compared
with their raw materials, suggesting the removal of insoluble pericarp
structures in fractionation. Moreover, a considerable increase in the phytic acid
content of the bran ingredients was observed in fractionation, revealing the
enrichment of aleurone-origin proteins. Species-specific differences in the
fractionation behaviour of starch in the three studied brans were detected. Air
classification allowed rather efficient removal of starch from the protein-
93
enriched rice bran fraction, presumably due to unaffected starch amyloplast
structures in fat extraction and milling. The starch content of wheat and rye
brans, containing both small and large starch granules from the starchy
endosperm, was not affected by fractionation. The fourth raw material studied
in this work was a high-starch barley endosperm fraction. Microstructural
observations of the air-classified fractions produced from this raw material
revealed that, despite reduced starch content in air classification, further
protein enrichment was restricted by the location of small starch granules
tightly embedded in a storage protein matrix in small-sized particles.
Dry fractionation altered the technological functionalities of the raw material
cereal side streams (protein solubility, dispersion stability, water and oil
binding capacities, pasting properties) and the observed modifications
proposed the enhanced applicability of the protein-enriched fractions in high-
moisture food matrices. Protein-enriched fractions from rice and wheat brans
showed higher protein solubility values in water compared with their raw
materials, especially at neutral and alkaline conditions. Increased protein
solubility, together with the increase in phytic acid content and protein profile
analysis, indicates the enrichment of the water- and salt-soluble aleurone
proteins during air classification. The protein-enriched rye bran fraction
exhibited lower solubility all through the studied pH conditions, which may
result from the enrichment of proteins complexed with other macro-
/micromolecules or more insoluble subaleurone and other starchy endosperm
proteins in the protein-enriched fractions, which requires further assessment.
Dry fractionation also altered the pasting properties of the ingredients, and for
example, the lowered peak and final viscosities in heating and cooling may
alleviate the challenges related to the processability of high-starch ingredients.
WBC and OBC were lower for the fractions compared with the raw materials,
which may deliver advantages in some food applications. In comparison, ultra-
fine milling, which was studied as a means for reducing the particle size of
wheat and rye brans to close to that of the air-classified ingredients, lowered
protein solubility and increased pasting viscosities as well as WBCs and OBCs
when compared with the air-classified fractions. However, the ultra-finely
milled brans did not differ from the air-classified protein-enriched fractions in
terms of emulsification ability.
The protein-enriched barley ingredient showed limited functionalities but
was considerably modified by ultrasound treatment with and without pH
shifting. Impact of ultrasonication depended on the treatment pH and showed
the most promising alterations at alkaline pH. Further modifications were
observed as a result of pH shifting, especially to alkaline conditions and back
to neutral. The improvements in technological functionality were detected as
increased protein solubility and colloidal stability, which are considered
relevant properties in high-moisture food systems. In addition to ultrasound
treatment, the functionalisation of the protein- and phytic acid-enriched rice
bran fraction using phytase was studied. The heat-induced gelation properties
of the ingredient under alkaline conditions were considerably improved as a
Conclusions
94
result of phytic acid degradation and the effect was presumed to primarily
result from increased protein surface hydrophobicity facilitating the gelation
and gelling of pectin due to the calcium ions released from the phytate
complex.
This study increased understanding of the factors affecting dry fractionation
of different cereal side streams aiming at the production of protein-enriched
hybrid ingredients. Selected pre-treatments were evidenced to improve the
behaviour of the material in dry fractionation and the dry-fractionated
ingredients exhibited modified techno-functional properties when compared
with their raw materials. Bioprocessing of the protein-enriched rice bran
fraction using phytase and ultrasound- and pH-shifting-aided processing of the
protein-enriched barley fraction were effective tools in further improving the
technological quality of the ingredients. The results propose that side stream
valorisation via dry fractionation alone or combined with subsequent targeted
functionalisation approaches increases both the nutritional and techno-
functional properties of the ingredients and open new possibilities for the food
applicability of the undervalued cereal side streams.
95
REFERENCES
Abdul-Hamid A, Luan YS. 2000. Functional properties of dietary fibre prepared from defatted rice bran. Food Chem. 68(1):15–19.
Adebiyi AP, Adebiyi AO, Hasegawa Y, Ogawa T, Muramoto K. 2009. Isolation and characterization of protein fractions from deoiled rice bran. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 228(3):391–401.
Adebiyi AP, Adebiyi AO, Tomohisa O, Muramoto K. 2007. Preparation and characterization of high-quality rice bran proteins. J. Sci. Food Agric. 87(6):1132–1139.
Alam SA, Järvinen J, Kirjoranta S, Jouppila K, Poutanen K, Sozer N. 2014. Influence of particle size reduction on structural and mechanical properties of extruded rye bran. Food Bioprocess Technol. 7(7):2121–2133.
Amagliani L, O’Regan J, Kelly AL, O’Mahony JA. 2017. Composition and protein profile analysis of rice protein ingredients. J. Food Compos. Anal. 59:18–26.
Andersson AAM, Andersson R, Åman P. 2000. Air classification of barley flours. Cereal Chem. 77(4):463–467.
Andersson AAM, Landberg R, Söderman T, Hedkvist S, Katina K, Juvonen R, Holopainen U, Lehtinen P, Åman P. 2011. Effects of alkylresorcinols on volume and structure of yeast-leavened bread. J. Sci. Food Agric. 91(2):226–232.
Antoine C, Lullien-Pellerin V, Abecassis J, Rouau X. 2004a. Effect of wheat bran ball-milling on fragmentation and marker extractability of the aleurone layer. J. Cereal Sci. 40(3):275–282.
Antoine C, Peyron S, Lullien-Pellerin V, Abecassis J, Rouau X. 2004b. Wheat bran tissue fractionation using biochemical markers. J. Cereal Sci. 39(3):387–393.
AOAC. 1995. AOAC Official Method 991.43 Total, soluble, and insoluble dietary fibre in foods. Cereal Foods 7–9.
Arte E, Huang X, Nordlund E, Katina K. 2019. Biochemical characterization and technofunctional properties of bioprocessed wheat bran protein isolates. Food Chem. 289:103–111.
Arte E, Katina K, Holopainen-Mantila U, Nordlund E. 2016. Effect of hydrolyzing enzymes on wheat bran cell wall integrity and protein solubility. Cereal Chem. 93(2):162–171.
Assatory A, Vitelli M, Rajabzadeh AR, Legge RL. 2019. Dry fractionation methods for plant protein, starch and fiber enrichment: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 86:340–351.
Auffret A, Ralet M-C, Guillon F, Barry J-L, Thibault J-F. 1994. Effect of grinding and experimental conditions on the measurement of hydration properties of dietary fibres. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 27(2):166–172.
Balandrán-Quintana RR, Mercado-Ruiz JN, Mendoza-Wilson AM. 2015. Wheat bran proteins: a review of their uses and potential. Food Rev. Int. 31:279–293.
Barakat A, Mayer-Laigle C. 2017. Electrostatic separation as an entry into environmentally eco-friendly dry biorefining of plant materials. J. Chem. Eng. Process Technol. 08(04):4–9.
References
96
Barrera GN, Pérez GT, Ribotta PD, León AE. 2007. Influence of damaged starch on cookie and bread-making quality. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 225(1):1–7.
Barrera GN, Tadini CC, León AE, Ribotta PD. 2016. Use of alpha-amylase and amyloglucosidase combinations to minimize the bread quality problems caused by high levels of damaged starch. J. Food Sci. Technol. 53(10):3675–3684.
Bataillon M, Mathaly P, Nunes Cardinali AP, Duchiron F. 1998. Extraction and purification of arabinoxylan from destarched wheat bran in a pilot scale. Ind. Crops Prod. 8(1):37–43.
Bel Haaj S, Magnin A, Pétrier C, Boufi S. 2013. Starch nanoparticles formation via high power ultrasonication. Carbohydr. Polym. 92(2):1625–1632.
Bera MB, Mukherjee RK. 1989. Solubility, emulsifying, and foaming properties of rice bran protein concentrates. J. Food Sci. 54(1):142–145.
Berton B, Scher J, Villieras F, Hardy J. 2002. Measurement of hydration capacity of wheat flour: Influence of composition and physical characteristics. Powder Technol. 128(2–3):326–331.
Bilgi B, Çelik S. 2004. Solubility and emulsifying properties of barley protein concentrate. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 218(5):437–441.
Bodie AR, Micciche AC, Atungulu GG, Rothrock MJ, Ricke SC. 2019. Current trends of rice milling byproducts for agricultural applications and alternative food production systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3:1–13.
Bohm A, Bogoni C, Behrens R, Otto T. 2011. Method for the extraction of aleurone from bran. US Pat. 8029843 B2.
Bohm A, Kratzer A. 2010. Method for isolating aleurone particles. US Pat. 7431228 B2.
Bohn L, Josefsen L, Meyer AS, Rasmussen SK. 2007. Quantitative analysis of phytate globoids isolated from wheat bran and characterization of their sequential dephosphorylation by wheat phytase. J. Agric. Food Chem. 55(18):7547–7552.
Brouns F, Hemery Y, Price R, Anson NM. 2012. Wheat aleurone: Separation, composition, health aspects, and potential food use. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 52(6):553–568.
Buri RC, Von Reding W, Gavin MH. 2004. Description and characterization of wheat aleurone. Cereal Foods World 49(5):274–282.
Burton RA, Fincher GB. 2014. Evolution and development of cell walls in cereal grains. Front. Plant Sci. 5:1–15.
Bushuk W (Ed.). 2001. Rye production, chemistry and technology. AACC Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota.
Cagampang G, Cruz LJ, Espiritu SG, Santiago RG, Juliano BO. 1966. Studies on the extraction and composition of rice proteins. Cereal Chem. 43(2).
Cao X, Wen H, Li C, Gu Z. 2009. Differences in functional properties and biochemical characteristics of congenetic rice proteins. J. Cereal Sci. 50(2):184–189.
Cao XM, Tian Y, Wang ZY, Liu YW, Wang CX. 2016. Effects of protein and phosphate buffer concentrations on thermal denaturation of lysozyme analyzed by isoconversional method. Bioengineered 7(4):235–240.
Caprez A, Arrigoni E, Amadò R, Neukom H. 1986. Influence of different types of thermal treatment on the chemical composition and physical properties of wheat bran. J. Cereal Sci. 4(3):233–239.
Capuano E, Pellegrini N. 2019. An integrated look at the effect of structure on nutrient bioavailability in plant foods. J. Sci. Food Agric. 99(2):493–498.
97
Celus I, Brijs K, Delcour JA. 2006. The effects of malting and mashing on barley protein extractability. J. Cereal Sci. 44(2):203–211.
Chakraborty P, Witt T, Harris D, Ashton J, Stokes JR, Smyth HE. 2019. Texture and mouthfeel perceptions of a model beverage system containing soluble and insoluble oat bran fibres. Food Res. Int. 120:62–72.
Chandi GK, Sogi DS. 2007. Functional properties of rice bran protein concentrates. J. Food Eng. 79(2):592–597.
Chaudhary DP, Kumar S, Yadav OP. 2014. Nutritive value of maize: Improvements, applications and constraints, in: Chaudhary, D.P., Kumar, D., Langyan, S. (Eds.), Maize: Nutrition Dynamics and Novel Uses. New Delhi, pp. 3–17.
Chinma CE, Ramakrishnan Y, Ilowefah M, Hanis-Syazwani M, Muhammad K. 2015. Properties of cereal brans: A review. Cereal Chem. 92(1):1–7.
Christensen H, Pain RH. 1991. Molten globule and protein folding. Eur. Biophys. J. 19:221–229.
Chung OK, Ohm JB, Guo AM, Deyoe CW, Lookhart GL, Ponte JG. 2002. Free lipids in air-classified high-protein fractions of hard winter wheat flours and their effects on breadmaking quality. Cereal Chem. 79(6):774–778.
Coda R, Kärki I, Nordlund E, Heiniö RL, Poutanen K, Katina K. 2014a. Influence of particle size on bioprocess induced changes on technological functionality of wheat bran. Food Microbiol. 37:69–77.
Coda R, Rizzello CG, Curiel JA, Poutanen K, Katina K. 2014b. Effect of bioprocessing and particle size on the nutritional properties of wheat bran fractions. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 25:19–27.
Cornejo-Ramírez YI, Martínez-Cruz O, Del Toro-Sánchez CL, Wong-Corral FJ, Borboa-Flores J, Cinco-Moroyoqui FJ. 2018. The structural characteristics of starches and their functional properties. CYTA - J. Food 16(1):1003–1017.
Csonka FA, Murphy JC, Jones DB. 1926. The iso-electric points of various proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 48(3):763–768.
Curti E, Carini E, Bonacini G, Tribuzio G, Vittadini E. 2013. Effect of the addition of bran fractions on bread properties. J. Cereal Sci. 57(3):325–332.
Damodaran S. 2005. Protein stabilization of emulsions and foams. J. Food Sci. 70(3):54–66.
Darlington HF, Tecsi L, Harris N, Griggs DL, Cantrell IC, Shewry PR. 2000. Starch granule associated proteins in barley and wheat. J. Cereal Sci. 32(1):21–29.
Day L. 2013. Proteins from land plants - Potential resources for human nutrition and food security. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 32(1):25–42.
De Bondt Y, Rosa-Sibakov N, Liberloo I, Roye C, Van de Walle D, Dewettinck K, Goos P, Nordlund E, Courtin CM. 2020. Study into the effect of microfluidisation processing parameters on the physicochemical properties of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) bran. Food Chem. 305:125436.
De Brier N, Gomand SV., Celus I, Courtin CM, Brijs K, Delcour JA. 2015. Extractability and chromatographic characterization of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) bran protein. J. Food Sci. 80(5):C967–C974.
Delcour J, Hoseney RC. 2010. Principles of Cereal Science and Technology, 3th Ed. ed. AACC International, Inc., St Paul (MN).
Deleu LJ, Lambrecht MA, Van de Vondel J, Delcour JA. 2019. The impact of alkaline conditions on storage proteins of cereals and pseudo-cereals.
References
98
Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 25:98–103.
Deng L, Wang Z, Yang S, Song J, Que F, Zhang H, Feng F. 2016. Improvement of functional properties of wheat gluten using acid protease from Aspergillus usamii. PLoS One 11(7):1–13.
Dexter JE, Wood PJ. 1996. Recent applications of debranning of wheat before milling. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 7(2):35–41.
Dickinson E. 2013. Stabilising emulsion-based colloidal structures with mixed food ingredients. J. Sci. Food Agric. 93(4):710–721.
Dickinson E. 2012. Emulsion gels: The structuring of soft solids with protein-stabilized oil droplets. Food Hydrocoll. 28(1):224–241.
Dijkink BH, Speranza L, Paltsidis D, Vereijken JM. 2007. Air dispersion of starch-protein mixtures: A predictive tool for air classification performance. Powder Technol. 172(2):113–119.
Doblado-Maldonado AF, Pike OA, Sweley JC, Rose DJ. 2012. Key issues and challenges in whole wheat flour milling and storage. J. Cereal Sci. 56(2):119–126.
Drakos A, Kyriakakis G, Evageliou V, Protonotariou S, Mandala I, Ritzoulis C. 2017a. Influence of jet milling and particle size on the composition, physicochemical and mechanical properties of barley and rye flours. Food Chem. 215:326–332.
Drakos A, Malindretou K, Mandala I, Evageliou V. 2017b. Protein isolation from jet milled rye flours differing in particle size. Food Bioprod. Process. 104:13–18.
EC European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, Official Journal of the European Union.
Elleuch M, Bedigian D, Roiseux O, Besbes S, Blecker C, Attia H. 2011. Dietary fibre and fibre-rich by-products of food processing: Characterisation, technological functionality and commercial applications: A review. Food Chem. 124(2):411–421.
Ercili-Cura D, Lille M, Legland D, Gaucel S, Poutanen K, Partanen R, Lantto R. 2013. Structural mechanisms leading to improved water retention in acid milk gels by use of transglutaminase. Food Hydrocoll. 30(1):419–427.
Evers T, Millar S. 2002. Cereal grain structure and development: Some implications for quality. J. Cereal Sci. 36:261–284.
FAO. 2003. FAO Food and Nutrition paper 77. Food energy - methods of analysis and conversion factors. Rome.
FAOSTAT. 2018. Crops. URL http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed 2020-August-15).
Fardet A. 2010. New hypotheses for the health-protective mechanisms of whole-grain cereals: what is beyond fibre? Nutr. Res. Rev. 23:65–134.
Ferrari B, Finocchiaro F, Stanca AM, Gianinetti A. 2009. Optimization of air classification for the production of β-glucan-enriched barley flours. J. Cereal Sci. 50(2):152–158.
Finley JW, Kohler GO. 1979. Processing conditions to inhibit lysinoalanine formation in alkaline-treated proteins. Cereal Chem. 56(3):130–132.
Flores-Jiménez NT, Ulloa JA, Silvas JEU, Ramírez JCR, Ulloa PR, Rosales PUB, Carrillo YS, Leyva RG. 2019. Effect of high-intensity ultrasound on the compositional, physicochemical, biochemical, functional and structural properties of canola (Brassica napus L.) protein isolate. Food
99
Res. Int. 121:947–956.
Flynn KP, Gupta A, Hrach FJJ. 2019. Process for separation of dry food and feed materials using a tribo-electrostatic separator device. WO Pat. 2019/046234 A1.
Foegeding EA, Davis JP. 2011. Food protein functionality: A comprehensive approach. Food Hydrocoll. 25(8):1853–1864.
Fujino Y. 1978. Rice lipids. Cereal Chem. 55(5):559–571.
Furchner B, Zampini S. 2012. Air classifying, in: Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, pp. 215–234.
Galanakis CM. 2018. Sustainable recovery and reutilization of cereal processing by-products. Andre Gerhard Wolff.
Garcia WJ, Gardner HW, Cavins JF, Stringfellow AC, Blessin CW, Inglett GE. 1972. Composition of air-classified defatted corn and wheat-germ flours. Cereal Chem. 49(5):499–507.
Gellrich C, Schieberle P, Wieser H. 2003. Biochemical characterization and quantification of the storage protein (secalin) types in rye flour. Cereal Chem. 80(1):102–109.
Girardet N, Webster FH. 2011. Oat milling: Spesifications, storage, and processing, in: Webster, F.H., Wood, P.J. (Eds.), Oats Chemistry and Technology. AACC International Press, pp. 301–319.
Glitsø L V., Bach Knudsen KE. 1999. Milling of whole grain rye to obtain fractions with different dietary fibre characteristics. J. Cereal Sci. 29(1):89–97.
Gnanasambandam R, Hettiarachchy NS. 1995. Protein Concentrates from unstabilized and stabilized rice bran: Preparation and properties. J. Food Sci. 60(5):1066–1069.
Goering KJ, Fritts DH, Eslick RF. 1973. A study of starch granule size and distribution in 29 barley varieties. Starch - Die Stärke 25(9):297–302.
Gupta RK, Gangoliya SS, Singh NK. 2013. Reduction of phytic acid and enhancement of bioavailable micronutrients in food grains. J. Food Sci. Technol. 52(2):676–684.
Hamada JS. 1997. Characterization of protein fractions of rice bran to devise effective methods of protein solubilization. Cereal Chem. 74(5):662–668.
Han S-W, Chee K-M, Cho S-J. 2015. Nutritional quality of rice bran protein in comparison to animal and vegetable protein. Food Chem. 172:766–9.
Hasjim J, Li E, Dhital S. 2013. Milling of rice grains: Effects of starch/flour structures on gelatinization and pasting properties. Carbohydr. Polym. 92(1):682–690.
Hayakawa S, Nakai S. 1985. Relationships of hydrophobicity and net charge to the solubility of milk and soy proteins. J. Food Sci. 50(2):486–491.
Heiniö RL, Liukkonen KH, Katina K, Myllymäki O, Poutanen K. 2003. Milling fractionation of rye produces different sensory profiles of both flour and bread. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 36(6):577–583.
Heiniö RL, Noort MWJ, Katina K, Alam SA, Sozer N, de Kock HL, Hersleth M, Poutanen K. 2016. Sensory characteristics of wholegrain and bran-rich cereal foods - A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 47:25–38.
Hemery Y, Chaurand M, Holopainen U, Lampi A-M, Lehtinen P, Piironen V, Sadoudi A, Rouau X. 2011a. Potential of dry fractionation of wheat bran for the development of food ingredients, part I: Influence of ultra-fine grinding. J. Cereal Sci. 53(1):1–8.
References
100
Hemery Y, Rouau X, Dragan C, Bilici M, Beleca R, Dascalescu L. 2009. Electrostatic properties of wheat bran and its constitutive layers: Influence of particle size, composition, and moisture content. J. Food Eng. 93(1):114–124.
Hemery Y, Rouau X, Lullien-Pellerin V, Barron C, Abecassis J. 2007. Dry processes to develop wheat fractions and products with enhanced nutritional quality. J. Cereal Sci. 46(3):327–347.
Hemery YM, Anson NM, Havenaar R, Haenen GRMM, Noort MWJ, Rouau X. 2010. Dry-fractionation of wheat bran increases the bioaccessibility of phenolic acids in breads made from processed bran fractions. Food Res. Int. 43(5):1429–1438.
Heneen WK, Brismar K. 1987. Scanning electron microscopy of mature grains of rye, wheat and triticale with emphasis on grain shrivelling. Hereditas 107(2):147–162.
Heusala H, Sinkko T, Sözer N, Hytönen E, Mogensen L, Knudsen MT. 2019. Carbon footprint and land use of oat and faba bean protein concentrates using a life cycle assessment approach. J. Clean. Prod. 118376.
Hickisch A, Bindl K, Vogel RF, Toelstede S. 2016. Thermal treatment of lupin-based milk alternatives – Impact on lupin proteins and the network of respective lupin-based yogurt alternatives. Food Res. Int. 89:850–859.
Higashiyama Y, Asano K. 1998. Recent progress in electrostatic separation technology. Part. Sci. Technol. 16(1):77–90.
Hirose M. 1993. Molten globule state of food proteins. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 4(2):48–51.
Holopainen-Mantila U, Marjamaa K, Merali Z, Käsper A, de Bot P, Jääskeläinen AS, Waldron K, Kruus K, Tamminen T. 2013. Impact of hydrothermal pre-treatment to chemical composition, enzymatic digestibility and spatial distribution of cell wall polymers. Bioresour. Technol. 138:156–162.
Holopainen URM, Pihlava JM, Serenius M, Hietaniemi V, Wilhelmson A, Poutanen K, Lehtinen P. 2014. Milling, water uptake, and modification properties of different barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) lots in relation to grain composition and structure. J. Agric. Food Chem. 62(35):8875–8882.
Hu H, Cheung IWY, Pan S, Li-Chan ECY. 2015. Effect of high intensity ultrasound on physicochemical and functional properties of aggregated soybean β-conglycinin and glycinin. Food Hydrocoll. 45:102–110.
Hu H, Wu J, Li-Chan ECY, Zhu L, Zhang F, Xu X, Fan G, Wang L, Huang X, Pan S. 2013. Effects of ultrasound on structural and physical properties of soy protein isolate (SPI) dispersions. Food Hydrocoll. 30(2):647–655.
Hytönen E, Sorsamäki L. 2018. Systematic design and evaluation of protein ingredient production concepts from food processing side-streams. Innov. food Technol. 30–32.
Idris WH, Babiker EE, El Tinay AH. 2003. Fractionation, solubility and functional properties of wheat bran proteins as influenced by pH and/or salt concentration. Nahrung - Food 47(6):425–429.
ISO 10520:1997. 1997. Native starch - Determination of starch content - Ewers polarimetric method.
Jacobs PJ, Bogaerts S, Hemdane S, Delcour JA, Courtin CM. 2016. Impact of wheat bran hydration properties as affected by toasting and degree of milling on optimal dough development in bread making. J. Agric. Food Chem. 64(18):3636–3644.
Jambrak AR, Lelas V, Mason TJ, Krešić G, Badanjak M. 2009. Physical
101
properties of ultrasound treated soy proteins. J. Food Eng. 93(4):386–393.
Jayadeep A, Singh V, Sathyendra Rao B V., Srinivas A, Ali SZ. 2009. Effect of physical processing of commercial de-oiled rice bran on particle size distribution, and content of chemical and bio-functional components. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2(1):57–67.
Jiang J, Chen J, Xiong YL. 2009. Structural and emulsifying properties of soy protein isolate subjected to acid and alkaline pH-shifting processes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57(16):7576–7583.
Jiang J, Wang Q, Xiong YL. 2018. A pH shift approach to the improvement of interfacial properties of plant seed proteins. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 19:50–56.
Jiang J, Xiong YL, Chen J. 2010. pH shifting alters solubility characteristics and thermal stability of soy protein isolate and its globulin fractions in different pH, salt concentration, and temperature conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58(13):8035–8042.
Jiang L, Wang J, Li Y, Wang Z, Liang J, Wang R, Chen Y, Ma W, Qi B, Zhang M. 2014. Effects of ultrasound on the structure and physical properties of black bean protein isolates. Food Res. Int. 62:595–601.
Jiang S, Ding J, Andrade J, Rababah TM, Almajwal A, Abulmeaty MM, Feng H. 2017. Modifying the physicochemical properties of pea protein by pH-shifting and ultrasound combined treatments. Ultrason. Sonochem. 38:835–842.
Jones DB. 1932. Factors for converting percentages of nitrogen in foods and feeds into percentages of protein. Br. Food J. 34(1):1–10.
Joye I. 2019. Protein digestibility of cereal products. Foods 8(6):1–14.
Ju ZY, Hettiarachchy NS, Rath N. 2001. Extraction, denaturation and hydrophobic properties of rice flour proteins. J. Food Sci. 66(2):229–232.
Juliano BO. 1993. Rice in human nutrition. The International Rice Research Institute, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Juliano BO. 1985. Polysaccharides, proteins and lipids of rice, in: Rice Chemistry and Technology. pp. 59–174.
Juliano BO, Bechtel DB. 1985. The rice grain and its gross composition, in: Rice Chemistry and Technology. pp. 17–57.
Junejo SA, Geng H, Wang N, Wang H, Ding Y, Zhou Y, Rashid A. 2019. Effects of particle size on physiochemical and in vitro digestion properties of durum wheat bran. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 54(1):221–230.
Kadam SU, Tiwari BK, Álvarez C, O’Donnell CP. 2015. Ultrasound applications for the extraction, identification and delivery of food proteins and bioactive peptides. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 46(1):60–67.
Kahlon T. 2009. Rice bran: Production, composition, functionality and food applications, physiological benefits. Wheat and Rice in Disease Prevention and Health: Benefits, risks and mechanisms in health promotion. 305–321.
Kamal-Eldin A, Lærke HN, Knudsen KEB, Lampi AM, Piironen V, Adlercreutz H, Katina K, Poutanen K, Åman P. 2009. Physical, microscopic and chemical characterisation of industrial rye and wheat brans from the Nordic countries. Food Nutr. Res. 53:1–11.
Katina K, Salmenkallio-Marttila M, Partanen R, Forssell P, Autio K. 2006. Effects of sourdough and enzymes on staling of high-fibre wheat bread. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 39(5):479–491.
Kaukovirta-Norja A, Myllymäki O, Aro H, Hietaniemi V, Pihlava J-M. 2008.
References
102
Method for fractionating oat, products thus obtained, and use thereof. WO Pat. 2008/08096044 A1.
Kaur S, Sharma S, Singh B, Dar BN. 2015. Effect of extrusion variables (temperature, moisture) on the antinutrient components of cereal brans. J. Food Sci. Technol. 52(3):1670–1676.
Kies AK, De Jonge LH, Kemme PA, Jongbloed AW. 2006. Interaction between protein, phytate, and microbial phytase. In vitro studies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54(5):1753–1758.
Kim JHJ, Varankovich N V., Nickerson MT. 2016. The effect of pH on the gelling behaviour of canola and soy protein isolates. Food Res. Int. 81:31–38.
Kinsella JE. 1976. Functional properties of proteins in foods: A survey. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 7(3):219–280.
Knorr D, Zenker M, Heinz V, Lee DU. 2004. Applications and potential of ultrasonics in food processing. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 15(5):261–266.
Knuckles BE, Chiu M-CM. 1995. β‐Glucan enrichment of barley fractions by air classification and sieving. J. Food Sci. 60(5):1070–1074.
Kornet R, Veenemans J, Venema P, van der Goot AJ, Meinders M, Sagis L, van der Linden E. 2021. Less is more: Limited fractionation yields stronger gels for pea proteins. Food Hydrocoll. 112:106285.
Kuk MS, Dowd MK. 1998. Supercritical CO2 extraction of rice bran. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 75(5):623–628.
Kumar R, Khatkar BS. 2017. Thermal, pasting and morphological properties of starch granules of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties. J. Food Sci. Technol. 54(8):2403–2410.
Kurek MA, Piwińska M, Wyrwisz J, Wierzbicka A. 2015. Automated static image analysis as a novel tool in describing the physical properties of dietary fiber. Food Sci. Technol. 35(4):620–625.
Laca A, Mousia Z, Díaz M, Webb C, Pandiella SS. 2006. Distribution of microbial contamination within cereal grains. J. Food Eng. 72(4):332–338.
Laemmli UK. 1970. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227(5259):680–685.
Laguna O, Barakat A, Alhamada H, Durand E, Baréa B, Fine F, Villeneuve P, Citeau M, Dauguet S, Lecomte J. 2018. Production of proteins and phenolic compounds enriched fractions from rapeseed and sunflower meals by dry fractionation processes. Ind. Crops Prod. 118:160–172.
Lai P, Li KY, Lu S, Chen HH. 2011. Physicochemical characteristics of rice starch supplemented with dietary fibre. Food Chem. 127(1):153–158.
Laskowski J, Lysiak G. 1999. Use of compression behaviour of legume seeds in view of impact grinding prediction. Powder Technol. 105(1–3):83–88.
Latta M, Eskin M. 1980. A simple and rapid colorimetric method for phytate determination. J. Agric. Food Chem. 28:1315–1317.
Latunde-Dada GO, Li X, Parodi A, Edwards CH, Ellis PR, Sharp PA. 2014. Micromilling enhances iron bioaccessibility from wholegrain wheat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 62(46):11222–11227.
Lee H, Yildiz G, dos Santos LC, Jiang S, Andrade JE, Engeseth NJ, Feng H. 2016. Soy protein nano-aggregates with improved functional properties prepared by sequential pH treatment and ultrasonication. Food Hydrocoll. 55:200–209.
Lehtomäki I, Myllymäki O. 2010. New dry-milling method for preparing bran. WO Pat. 2010/000935.
103
Leighton T. 1998. The principles of cavitation, in: Povey, M.J.W., Mason, T.J. (Eds.), Ultrasound in Food Processing. Blackie Academic & Professional, London, pp. 151–178.
Létang C, Samson MF, Lasserre TM, Chaurand M, Abécassis J. 2002. Production of starch with very low protein content from soft and hard wheat flours by jet milling and air classification. Cereal Chem. 79(4):535–543.
Lexhaller B, Colgrave ML, Scherf KA. 2019. Characterization and relative quantitation of wheat, rye, and barley gluten protein types by liquid chromatography – tandem mass spectrometry. Front. Plant Sci. 10:1530.
Lin MJY, Humbert ES, Sosulski FW. 1974. Certain functional properties of sunflower meal products. J. Food Sci. 39(2):368–370.
Linko R, Lapvetelainen A, Laakso P, Kallio H. 1989. Protein composition of a high-protein barley flour and barley grain (1951):478–482.
Liu ZS, Chang SKC, Li L Te, Tatsumi E. 2004. Effect of selective thermal denaturation of soybean proteins on soymilk viscosity and tofu’s physical properties. Food Res. Int. 37(8):815–822.
Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. 1951. Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 193:265–275.
Lundgren M. 2011. Composition of fractions from air-classified wheat flour. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Mäkinen OE, Zannini E, Koehler P, Arendt EK. 2016. Heat-denaturation and aggregation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) globulins as affected by the pH value. Food Chem. 196:17–24.
Malekian F, Rao RM, Prinyawiwatkul W, Marshall WE, Windhauser M, Ahmedna M. 2000. Lipase and lipoxygenase activity, functionality, and nutrient losses in rice bran during storage.
Malik MA, Saini CS. 2018. Rheological and structural properties of protein isolates extracted from dephenolized sunflower meal: Effect of high intensity ultrasound. Food Hydrocoll. 81:229–241.
Mälkki Y, Myllymäki O, Teinilä K, Koponen S. 2001. A method for preparing an oat product and a foodstuff enriched in the content of beta-glucan. Pat. WO 01/26479 A1.
Marshall WE, Wadsworth JI. 1993. Rice science and technology. CRC Press.
Martínez-Velasco A, Lobato-Calleros C, Hernández-Rodríguez BE, Román-Guerrero A, Alvarez-Ramirez J, Vernon-Carter EJ. 2018. High intensity ultrasound treatment of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) protein: Effect on surface properties, foaming ability and structural changes. Ultrason. Sonochem. 44:97–105.
Matsubara H, Nishimura S. 1958. Crystalline bacterial proteinase: V. On the reaction with diisopropyl fluorophosphate. J. Biochem. 45(7):503–510.
Mazumder MK, Sims RA, Biris AS, Srirama PK, Saini D, Yurteri CU, Trigwell S, De S, Sharma R. 2006. Twenty-first century research needs in electrostatic processes applied to industry and medicine. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61(7):2192–2211.
McCleary B V., DeVries JW, Rader JI, Cohen G, Prosky L, Mugford DC, Champ M, Okuma K. 2012. Determination of insoluble, soluble, and total dietary fiber (CODEX definition) by enzymatic-gravimetric method and liquid chromatography: Collaborative study. J. AOAC Int. 95(3):824–844.
McClements DJ. 2007. Critical review of techniques and methodologies for characterization of emulsion stability. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 47(7):611–649.
References
104
McHugh M, Krukonis V. 2013. Supercritical Fluid Extraction: Principles and Practice.
Messia MC, De Arcangelis E, Candigliota T, Trivisonno MC, Marconi E. 2020. Production of ß-glucan enriched flour from waxy barley. J. Cereal Sci. 93:102989.
Meuser F, Busch KG, Fuhrmeister H, Rubach K. 2001. Foam-forming capacity of substances present in rye. Cereal Chem. 78(1):50–54.
Mikkonen K, Tenkanen M, Willför S, Hicks KB, Yadav MP. 2008. Mannans and xylans as stabilizers of a model oil-in-water beverage system, in: Conference on Gums and Stabilisers for the Food Industry. Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 251–256.
Mohamed A, Hojilla-Evangelista MP, Peterson SC, Biresaw G. 2007. Barley protein isolate: Thermal, functional, rheological, and surface properties. JAOCS, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 84(3):281–288.
Möller AC, van der Padt A, van der Goot A. 2021. From raw material to mildly refined ingredient – Linking structure to composition to understand fractionation processes. J. Food Eng. 291:110321.
Moore JC, DeVries JW, Lipp M, Griffiths JC, Abernethy DR. 2010. Total protein methods and their potential utility to reduce the risk of food protein adulteration. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 9(4):330–357.
Müller A-K, Ruppel J, Drexel C-P, Zimmermann I. 2008. Precipitated silica as flow regulator. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 34(4–5):303–308.
Munialo CD, van der Linden E, Ako K, de Jongh HHJ. 2015. Quantitative analysis of the network structure that underlines the transitioning in mechanical responses of pea protein gels. Food Hydrocoll. 49:104–117.
Nazari B, Mohammadifar MA, Shojaee-Aliabadi S, Feizollahi E, Mirmoghtadaie L. 2018. Effect of ultrasound treatments on functional properties and structure of millet protein concentrate. Ultrason. Sonochem. 41:382–388.
Németh E, Albrecht V, Schubert G, Simon F. 2003. Polymer tribo-electric charging: Dependence on thermodynamic surface properties and relative humidity. J. Electrostat. 58(1–2):3–16.
Nisov A, Ercili-Cura D, Nordlund E. 2020. Limited hydrolysis of rice endosperm protein for improved techno-functional properties. Food Chem. 302:125274.
Niu M, Hou GG, Wang L, Chen Z. 2014. Effects of superfine grinding on the quality characteristics of whole-wheat flour and its raw noodle product. J. Cereal Sci. 60(2):382–388.
Noguchi A, Sato O, Haque Z, Saio K. 1981. Preparation of protein rich flour from rice by air classification and electrostatic separation. Nippon Shokuhin Kogyo Gakkaishi 28(8):405–411.
Noort MWJ, van Haaster D, Hemery Y, Schols HA, Hamer RJ. 2010. The effect of particle size of wheat bran fractions on bread quality - Evidence for fibre-protein interactions. J. Cereal Sci. 52(1):59–64.
Nordlund E, Aura AM, Mattila I, Kössö T, Rouau X, Poutanen K. 2012. Formation of phenolic microbial metabolites and short-chain fatty acids from rye, wheat, and oat bran and their fractions in the metabolical in vitro colon model. J. Agric. Food Chem. 60(33):8134–8145.
Nordlund E, Heiniö RL, Viljanen K, Pihlava JM, Lehtinen P, Poutanen K. 2013a. Flavour and stability of rye grain fractions in relation to their chemical composition. Food Res. Int. 54(1):48–56.
Nordlund E, Katina K, Aura AM, Poutanen K. 2013b. Changes in bran structure
105
by bioprocessing with enzymes and yeast modifies the in vitro digestibility and fermentability of bran protein and dietary fibre complex. J. Cereal Sci. 58(1):200–208.
O’Sullivan J, Beevers J, Park M, Greenwood R, Norton I. 2015. Comparative assessment of the effect of ultrasound treatment on protein functionality pre- and post-emulsification. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 484:89–98.
O’Sullivan J, Murray B, Flynn C, Norton I. 2016. The effect of ultrasound treatment on the structural, physical and emulsifying properties of animal and vegetable proteins. Food Hydrocoll. 53:141–154.
OECD/FAO. 2020. World cereal projections, Table C.1, in: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020-2029. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Oliveira MG de C, Bassinello PZ, Lobo VL da S, Rinaldi MM. 2012. Stability and microbiological quality of rice bran subjected to different heat treatments. Food Sci. Technol. 32(4):725–733.
Osborne TB. 1924. The vegetable proteins, 2nd ed. Longmans Green and Co., London.
Paraman I, Hettiarachchy NS, Schaefer C, Beck MI. 2007. Hydrophobicity, solubility, and emulsifying properties of enzyme-modified rice endosperm protein. Cereal Chem. 84(4):343–349.
Park D-J, Ku H-K, Mok C. 1993. Microparticulation / air classification of rice bran: characteristics and application. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 25(6):769–774.
Parker ML. 1981. The structure of mature rye endosperm. Ann. Bot. 47(2):181–186.
Parker ML, Ng A, Waldron KW. 2005. The phenolic acid and polysaccharide composition of cell walls of bran layers of mature wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Avalon) grains. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85(15):2539–2547.
Patel PM. 2005. Supercritical fluid extraction of rice bran with adsorption on rice hull ash. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
Pearce KN, Kinsella JE. 1978. Emulsifying properties of proteins: evaluation of a turbidimetric technique. J. Agric. Food Chem. 26(3):716–723.
Pelgrom PJM, Berghout JAM, van der Goot AJ, Boom RM, Schutyser MAI. 2014. Preparation of functional lupine protein fractions by dry separation. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 59:680–688.
Pelgrom PJM, Vissers AM, Boom RM, Schutyser MAI. 2013. Dry fractionation for production of functional pea protein concentrates. Food Res. Int. 53(1):232–239.
Pelgrom PJM, Wang J, Boom RM, Schutyser MAI. 2015. Pre- and post-treatment enhance the protein enrichment from milling and air classification of legumes. J. Food Eng. 155:53–61.
Pernollet JC. 1978. Protein bodies of seeds: Ultrastructure, biochemistry, biosynthesis and degradation. Phytochemistry 17(9):1473–1480.
Piot O, Autran JC, Manfait M. 2000. Spatial distribution of protein and phenolic constituents in wheat grain as probed by confocal raman microspectroscopy. J. Cereal Sci. 32(1):57–71.
Poore J, Nemecek T. 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science (80-. ). 360:987–992.
Prakash J, Ramanatham G. 1994. Effect of stabilization of rice bran on the extractability and recovery of proteins. Nahrung 38(1):87–95.
Quinn J, Paton D. 1979. A practical measurement of water hydration capacity
References
106
of protein materials. Cereal Chem. 56(1):38–40.
Rafe A, Mousavi SS, Shahidi SA. 2014. Dynamic rheological behavior of rice bran protein (RBP): Effects of concentration and temperature. J. Cereal Sci. 60(3):514–519.
Ranhotra GS, Gelroth JA, Glaser BK, Posner ES. 1992. Total and soluble fibre content of air-classified white flour from hard and soft wheats. Cereal Chem. 69(1):75–77.
Ranhotra GS, Gelroth JA, Glaser BK, Reddy P V. 1994. Nutritional profile of a fraction from air-classified bran obtained from a hard red wheat. Cereal Chem. 71(4):321–323.
Rao MA (Ed.). 2014. Rheology of Fluid, Semisolid and Solid Foods. Springer, Boston, MA, New York.
Redant L, Buggenhout J, Brijs K, Delcour JA. 2017. Extractability and chromatographic separation of rye (Secale cereale L.) flour proteins. J. Cereal Sci. 73:68–75.
Resendiz-Vazquez JA, Ulloa JA, Urías-Silvas JE, Bautista-Rosales PU, Ramírez-Ramírez JC, Rosas-Ulloa P, González-Torres L. 2017. Effect of high-intensity ultrasound on the technofunctional properties and structure of jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) seed protein isolate. Ultrason. Sonochem. 37:436–444.
Rhodes M. 2008. Introduction to Particle Technology: Second Edition, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Rizzello CG, Coda R, Mazzacane F, Minervini D, Gobbetti M. 2012. Micronized by-products from debranned durum wheat and sourdough fermentation enhanced the nutritional, textural and sensory features of bread. Food Res. Int. 46(1):304–313.
Rohrlich M, Rasmus R. 1956. Versuche zur chemischen Differenzierung der Eiweißstoffe des Weizen und Roggen. Leb. Untersuchung und Forsch. 103(2):89–97.
Rombouts I, Lamberts L, Celus I, Lagrain B, Brijs K, Delcour JA. 2009. Wheat gluten amino acid composition analysis by high-performance anion-exchange chromatography with integrated pulsed amperometric detection. J. Chromatogr. A 1216(29):5557–5562.
Rommi K, Ercili-Cura D, Hakala TK, Nordlund E, Poutanen K, Lantto R. 2015a. Impact of total solid content and extraction pH on enzyme-aided recovery of protein from defatted rapeseed (Brassica rapa L.) press cake and physicochemical properties of the protein fractions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 63(11):2997–3003.
Rommi K, Holopainen U, Pohjola S, Hakala TK, Lantto R, Poutanen K, Nordlund E. 2015b. Impact of particle size reduction and carbohydrate-hydrolyzing enzyme treatment on protein recovery from rapeseed (Brassica rapa L.) press cake. Food Bioprocess Technol. 8(12):2392–2399.
Rosa-Sibakov N, Poutanen K, Micard V. 2015a. How does wheat grain, bran and aleurone structure impact their nutritional and technological properties? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 41(2):118–134.
Rosa-Sibakov N, Re M, Karsma A, Laitila A, Nordlund E. 2018. Phytic acid reduction by bioprocessing as a tool to improve the in vitro digestibility of faba bean protein. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66(40):10394–10399.
Rosa-Sibakov N, Sibakov J, Lahtinen P, Poutanen K. 2015b. Wet grinding and microfluidization of wheat bran preparations: Improvement of dispersion stability by structural disintegration. J. Cereal Sci. 64:1–10.
107
Rosa NN, Barron C, Gaiani C, Dufour C, Micard V. 2013. Ultra-fine grinding increases the antioxidant capacity of wheat bran. J. Cereal Sci. 57(1):84–90.
Saio K, Noguchi A. 1983. The microstructure of polished, milled and air-classified rice and rice bran. Nippon Shokuhin Kogyo Gakkaishi 30(6):331–338.
Saunders RM. 1990. The properties of rice bran as a foodstuff. Cereal Foods World 35(7):632–636.
Schalk K, Lexhaller B, Koehler P, Scherf KA. 2017. Isolation and characterization of gluten protein types from wheat, rye, barley and oats for use as reference materials. PLoS One 12(2):1–20.
Schmitt C, Silva JV, Amagliani L, Chassenieux C, Nicolai T. 2019. Heat-induced and acid-induced gelation of dairy/plant protein dispersions and emulsions. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 27:43–48.
Schutyser MAI, Pelgrom PJM, van der Goot AJ, Boom RM. 2015. Dry fractionation for sustainable production of functional legume protein concentrates. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 45(2):327–335.
Schutyser MAI, van der Goot AJ. 2011. The potential of dry fractionation processes for sustainable plant protein production. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 22(4):154–164.
Selle PH, Ravindran V, Caldwell a, Bryden WL. 2000. Phytate and phytase: consequences for protein utilisation. Nutr. Res. Rev. 13(2):255–278.
Shewry PR, Parmar S, Field JM. 1988. Two-dimensional electrophoresis of cereal prolamins: Applications to biochemical and genetic analyses. Electrophoresis 9(11):727–737.
Shibuya N, Nakane R, Yasui A, Tanaka K, Iwasaki T. 1985. Comparative studies on cell wall preparations from rice bran, germ, and endosperm. Cereal Chem. 62(4):252–258.
Shiferaw B, Smale M, Braun HJ, Duveiller E, Reynolds M, Muricho G. 2013. Crops that feed the world 10. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by wheat in global food security. Food Secur. 5(3):291–317.
Sibakov J, Abecassis J, Barron C, Poutanen K. 2014. Electrostatic separation combined with ultra-fine grinding to produce β-glucan enriched ingredients from oat bran. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 26:445–455.
Sibakov J, Myllymäki O, Holopainen U, Kaukovirta-Norja A, Hietaniemi V, Pihlava JM, Poutanen K, Lehtinen P. 2011. Lipid removal enhances separation of oat grain cell wall material from starch and protein. J. Cereal Sci. 54(1):104–109.
Soria AC, Villamiel M. 2010. Effect of ultrasound on the technological properties and bioactivity of food: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 21(7):323–331.
Sosulski FW, McCurdy AR. 1987. Functionality of flours, protein fractions and isolates from field peas and faba bean. J. Food Sci. 52(4):1010–1014.
Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky BL, Lassaletta L, de Vries W, Vermeulen SJ, Herrero M, Carlson KM, Jonell M, Troell M, DeClerck F, Gordon LJ, Zurayk R, Scarborough P, Rayner M, Loken B, Fanzo J, Godfray HCJ, Tilman D, Rockström J, Willett W. 2018. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562:519–525.
Stevenson DG, Eller FJ, Jane JL, Inglett GE. 2008. Structure and physicochemical properties of defatted and pin-milled oat bran concentrate fractions separated by air-classification. Int. J. Food Sci.
References
108
Technol. 43(6):995–1003.
Stringfellow AC, Peplinski AJ. 1966. Air classification of sorghum flours from varieties representing different hardnesses. Cereal Sci. Today 11(10):439–441.
Sujka M, Jamroz J. 2013. Ultrasound-treated starch: SEM and TEM imaging, and functional behaviour. Food Hydrocoll. 31(2):413–419.
Sumner AK, Gebre-Egziabher A, Tyler RT, Rossnagel BG. 1985. Composition and properties of pearled and fines fractions from hulled and hull-les barley. Cereal Chem. 62(2):112–116.
Sun XD, Shi D, Lan Y, Yao XM, Zhang RY, Zhang YL, Su P, Shan H. 2017a. Factors influencing gelation properties of corn germ proteins. J. Sci. Food Agric. 97(13):4445–4450.
Takeda Y, Takeda C, Mizukami H, Hanashiro I. 1999. Structures of large, medium and small starch granules of barley grain. Carbohydr. Polym. 38(2):109–114.
Tanaka K, Yoshida T, Asada K, Kasai Z. 1973. Subcellular particles isolated from aleurone layer of rice seeds. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 155(1):136–143.
Tanaka Y, Resurreccion AP, Juliano BO, Bechtel DB. 1978. Properties of whole and undigested fraction of protein bodies of milled rice. Agric. Biol. Chem. 42(11):2015–2023.
Tang CH, Wang XY, Yang XQ, Li L. 2009. Formation of soluble aggregates from insoluble commercial soy protein isolate by means of ultrasonic treatment and their gelling properties. J. Food Eng. 92(4):432–437.
Tang S, Hettiarachchy NS, Shellhammer TH. 2002. Protein extraction from heat-stabilized defatted rice bran. 1. Physical processing and enzyme treatments. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:7444–7448.
Tester RF. 1997. Properties of damaged starch granules: Composition and swelling properties of maize, rice, pea and potato starch fractions in water at various temperatures. Food Hydrocoll. 11(3):293–301.
Tester RF, Morrison WR. 1990. Swelling and gelatinization of cereal starches. I. Effects of amylopectin, amylose, and lipids. Cereal Chem. 67(6):551–557.
Teunou E, Fitzpatrick JJ, Synnott EC. 1999. Characterization of food powder flowability. J. Food Eng. 39(1):31–37.
Thiex NJ, Manson H, Andersson S, Persson J-A. 2002. Determination of crude protein in animal feed, forage, grain, and oilseeds by using block digestion with a copper catalyst and steam distillation into boric acid: collaborative study. J. AOAC Int. 85(2):309–17.
Totosaus A, Montejano JG, Salazar JA, Guerrero I. 2002. A review of physical and chemical protein-gel induction. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 37:589–601.
Tyler RT, Panchuk BD. 1982. Effect of seed moisture content on the air classification of field peas and faba beans. Cereal Chem. 59(1):31–33.
Tyler RT, Youngs CG, Sosulski FW. 1981. Air classification of legumes. I. Separation efficiency, yield, and composition of the starch and protein fractions. Cereal Chem. 58(2):144–148.
Urias-Orona V, Rascón-Chu A, Lizardi-Mendoza J, Carvajal-Millán E, Gardea AA, Ramírez-Wong B. 2010. A Novel pectin material: Extraction, characterization and gelling properties. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 11(10):3686–3695.
Vaintraub IA, Lapteva NA. 1988. Colorimetric determination of phytate in unpurified extracts of seeds and the products of their processing. Anal.
109
Biochem. 175:227–230.
Van Craeyveld V, Holopainen U, Selinheimo E, Poutanen K, Delcour JA, Courtin CM. 2009. Extensive dry ball milling of wheat and rye bran leads to in situ production of arabinoxylan oligosaccharides through nanoscale fragmentation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57(18):8467–8473.
Vasanthan T, Bhatty RS. 1995. Starch purification after pin milling and air classification of waxy, normal, and high amylose barleys. Cereal Chem. 72(4):379–384.
Vogelsang-O’Dwyer M, Petersen IL, Joehnke MS, Sørensen JC, Bez J, Detzel A, Busch M, Krueger M, Mahony JAO, Arendt EK, Zannini E. 2020. Comparison of faba bean protein ingredients produced using dry fractionation and isoelectric precipitation: Techno-functional, nutritional and environmental performance. Foods 9:322.
Vose CG, Youngs JR. 1978. Fractionation of barley and malted barley flours by air classification. Cereal Chem. 55(3):280–286.
Wada T, Lott JNA. 1997. Light and electron microscopic and energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis studies of globoids in protein bodies of embryo tissues and the aleurone layer of rice (Oryza sativa L.) grains. Can. J. Bot. 75:1137–1147.
Walde SG, Balaswamy K, Velu V, Rao DG. 2002. Microwave drying and grinding characteristics of wheat (Triticum aestivum). J. Food Eng. 55(3):271–276.
Wang C, Li D, Xu F, Hao T, Zhang M. 2014. Comparison of two methods for the extraction of fractionated rice bran protein. J. Chem. 2014:1–10.
Wang C, Tian Z, Chen L, Temelli F, Liu H, Wang Y. 2010. Functionality of barley proteins extracted and fractionated by alkaline and alcohol methods. Cereal Chem. 87(6):597–606.
Wang H, Chen Y, Hua Y, Kong X, Zhang C. 2014. Effects of phytase-assisted processing method on physicochemical and functional properties of soy protein isolate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 62(45):10989–10997.
Wang J, De Wit M, Boom RM, Schutyser MAI. 2015a. Charging and separation behavior of gluten-starch mixtures assessed with a custom-built electrostatic separator. Sep. Purif. Technol. 152:164–171.
Wang J, De Wit M, Schutyser MAI, Boom RM. 2014. Analysis of electrostatic powder charging for fractionation of foods. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 26:360–365.
Wang J, Smits E, Boom RM, Schutyser MAI. 2015b. Arabinoxylans concentrates from wheat bran by electrostatic separation. J. Food Eng. 155:29–36.
Wang J, Suo G, de Wit M, Boom RM, Schutyser MAI. 2016. Dietary fibre enrichment from defatted rice bran by dry fractionation. J. Food Eng. 186:50–57.
Wang M, Hettiarachchy NS, Qi M, Burks W, Siebenmorgen T. 1999. Preparation and functional properties of rice bran protein isolate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47:411–416.
Wang S, Li C, Copeland L, Niu Q, Wang Shuo. 2015. Starch retrogradation: A comprehensive review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 14(5):568–585.
Wang Y, Forssberg E. 2007. Enhancement of energy efficiency for mechanical production of fine and ultra-fine particles in comminution. China Particuology 5(3):193–201.
Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, Garnett T, Tilman D, DeClerck F, Wood A, Jonell M, Clark M, Gordon LJ,
References
110
Fanzo J, Hawkes C, Zurayk R, Rivera JA, De Vries W, Majele Sibanda L, Afshin A, Chaudhary A, Herrero M, Agustina R, Branca F, Lartey A, Fan S, Crona B, Fox E, Bignet V, Troell M, Lindahl T, Singh S, Cornell SE, Srinath Reddy K, Narain S, Nishtar S, Murray CJL. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393(10170):447–492.
Wu YV, Doehlert DC. 2002. Enrichment of β-glucan in oat bran by fine grinding and air classification. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 35(1):30–33.
Wu YV, Inglett GE. 1974. Denaturation of plant proteins related to functionality and food applications. A Rewiev. J. Food Sci. 39(2):218–225.
Wu YV, Stringfellow AC. 1992. Air Classification of flours from wheats with varying hardness: protein shifts. Cereal Chem. 69(2):188–191.
Wu YV, Stringfellow AC. 1973. Protein concentrates from oat flours by air classification of normal and high-protein varieties. Cereal Chem. 50(4):489–496.
Wu YV, Stringfellow AC, Inglett GE. 1994. Protein- and beta-glucan enriched fractions from high-protein, high beta-glucan barley by sieving and air classification. Cereal Chem. 71(3):220–223.
Xing Q, de Wit M, Kyriakopoulou K, Boom RM, Schutyser MAI. 2018. Protein enrichment of defatted soybean flour by fine milling and electrostatic separation. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 50:42–49.
Xiong T, Xiong W, Ge M, Xia J, Li B, Chen Y. 2018. Effect of high intensity ultrasound on structure and foaming properties of pea protein isolate. Food Res. Int. 109:260–267.
Xu X, Liu W, Liu C, Luo L, Chen J, Luo S, McClements DJ, Wu L. 2016. Effect of limited enzymatic hydrolysis on structure and emulsifying properties of rice glutelin. Food Hydrocoll. 61:251–260.
Yalçin E, Çelik S, Ibanoǧlu E. 2008. Foaming properties of barley protein isolates and hydrolysates. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 226(5):967–974.
Yang C, Wang Y, Vasanthan T, Chen L. 2014. Impacts of pH and heating temperature on formation mechanisms and properties of thermally induced canola protein gels. Food Hydrocoll. 40:225–236.
Yang X, Nisar T, Liang D, Hou Y, Sun L, Guo Y. 2018. Low methoxyl pectin gelation under alkaline conditions and its rheological properties: Using NaOH as a pH regulator. Food Hydrocoll. 79:560–571.
Yeom H-J, Lee E-H, Ha M-S, Ha S-D, Bae D-H. 2010. Production and physicochemical properties of rice bran protein isolates prepared with autoclaving and enzymatic hydrolysis. J. Korean Soc. Appl. Biol. Chem. 53(1):62–70.
Yildiz G, Andrade J, Engeseth NE, Feng H. 2017. Functionalizing soy protein nano-aggregates with pH-shifting and mano-thermo-sonication. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 505:836–846.
Yupsanis T, Burgess SR, Jackson PJ, Shewry PR. 1990. Characterization of the major protein component from aleurone cells of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). J. Exp. Bot. 41(4):385–392.
Zayas JF. 1997. Functionality of Proteins in Food. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Zhang D, Moore WR. 1997. Effect of wheat bran particle size on dough rheological properties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 74(4):490–496.
Zhu K, Huang S, Peng W, Qian H, Zhou H. 2010. Effect of ultrafine grinding on hydration and antioxidant properties of wheat bran dietary fiber. Food Res. Int. 43(4):943–948.